Cohabitating Vs Living Together

[PhuturePriest]

Studies show those who cohabitated before marriage have incredibly higher chances of ending in divorce. So while not inherently immoral, it is a bad idea in general if you want to take every precaution in not getting divorced.

[Credo in Deum]

Cool! THen people living together arent always in near occasions of sin either. Stay consistent Credo.

 

I am consistent.  I do not believe people living together are always in an occasion of sin.  A married couple living together aren't in occasion of sin, and neither are people who are not romantically involved in an occasion of sin.  

 

 

Courtship, dating. Same thing. So why is it hard work if they arent in an occasion of sin? Isnt it hard work because they are in an occasion of sin and they work against it? cmon Credo

 

No it is hard work because we are fallen human beings and more inclined towards sin than virtue.  C'mon Cross think. 

 

 

Right so, the urges come from being in a near occasion of sin. And youre right! The urges arent sinful. So living together with that urge while no acting on it is not sinful. Cmon Credo.

 

Wrong.  Urges come from being human.   You went way out into left field Cross.  I don't know how you got there but you always seem go toward that direction.  

 

 

Spedning time together while not "living together" in the same house is still living together. You see your significant other very frequently so who does adding four walls and a roof suddenly render the situation unavoidable and sin ridden?

 

 

No that is not true.  If that was the case you wouldn't need to "live together" since you would already be doing it while not "living together".  You sound ridiculous. 

 

 

Marriage is about live, correct! Bravo! Making the choice to live together is a personal variable that is hinged on convenience. Has nothing to do with their commitment to marriage. Saying that all people who choose to live together before marriage means they are uncommitted and cray cray is stupid and illogical. Its highly subjective and you cannot be any judge of their personal relationship.

 

 

I have no clue what you're talking about here.  I don't think you know either.   Talk to me when you start making sense.  

 

 

Dont need to. You havent made any sense. You are going in circles and being very inconsistent. You have provided nothing logical to support your stance and you seem to think that a house is a magical being that renders people lustful, mortal sinners, that are prideful and uncommitted. rofl.

 

 

I think it's past your bedtime. You have not shown where I have been inconsistant.  You have shown that you have pulled some very odd conclusions from my responses.  Bravo! This isn't the first time you've done this and I'm sure it wont be the last. 

 

 

One thing I suggest is thinking about it with an open mind, without judgment, and not simply believing it because thats what youve always been told. Gotta use that mushy 3lb thing in the skull.

 

 

Haha, I love this type of talk.  Stop being so religious.  Be progressive.  Be open to error, and put it on the same pedestal as truth.  It's all subjective and relative anyway, brah.   Yeah, not going to do it. 

 

 

YES! And a house is not a magical entity that turns your statment to "Couple who spend time together in a house are always in an occasion of sin." Do you see how derpy your stance is?"

 

 

I never said a house was a magical entity.  More of your patented putting words in other peoples mouth maneuver.  

 

 

You should put anti fornication signs up in public places and make all the girls dress in potato sacks and the guys dress in onies. Eliminate any sort of potential sexual attraction. Maybe there is some way we can burn down all homes....then no one would be in the near occasion of sin EVER!

 

Dude, you live in a world of make believe. Sorry. But nothing you said makes any sense. Sorry brah.

 

 

The fact that your responded with the above statement clearly shows you have no clue what you're talking about and that you have completely misunderstood me.    Which is fine, this is typical behavior for you.  

 

Also you seem a little bit emotionally invested in this topic.  Are you sure we're not discussing something personal for you?  Did you move in with your fiance?  Guilty conscience maybe?

 

 

Also here is an article on occasion of sin.  You should read it. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm

[CrossCuT]

I am consistent.  I do not believe people living together are always in an occasion of sin.  A married couple living together aren't in occasion of sin, and neither are people who are not romantically involved in an occasion of sin.  

 

Avoiding the question raised. Are non married persons who spend their time under the same roof always in a near occasion of sin vs non married person who spend their time sometimes under the same roof always in a near occasion of sin?

 

 

 

No it is hard work because we are fallen human beings and more inclined towards sin than virtue.  C'mon Cross think. 

Avoiding the question raised. Are non married persons who are dating/courting ever in a near occasion of sin?

 

 

 

 

Wrong.  Urges come from being human.   You went way out into left field Cross.  I don't know how you got there but you always seem go toward that direction.  

I like left field. 

 

 

 

 

No that is not true.  If that was the case you wouldn't need to "live together" since you would already be doing it while not "living together".  You sound ridiculous. 

What I am pointing out is that spending time together is equal to spending time together. Regardless of the presence of a roof and four walls does not dictate the presence or absence of a near occasion of sin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have no clue what you're talking about here.  I don't think you know either.   Talk to me when you start making sense.  

 

 

 

 

I think it's past your bedtime. You have not shown where I have been inconsistant.  You have shown that you have pulled some very odd conclusions from my responses.  Bravo! This isn't the first time you've done this and I'm sure it wont be the last. 

 

 

 

 

Haha, I love this type of talk.  Stop being so religious.  Be progressive.  Be open to error, and put it on the same pedestal as truth.  It's all subjective and relative anyway, brah.   Yeah, not going to do it. 

 

 

 

 

I never said a house was a magical entity.  More of your patented putting words in other peoples mouth maneuver.  

 

 

 

 

The fact that your responded with the above statement clearly shows you have no clue what you're talking about and that you have completely misunderstood me.    Which is fine, this is typical behavior for you.  

 

Also you seem a little bit emotionally invested in this topic.  Are you sure we're not discussing something personal for you?  Did you move in with your fiance?  Guilty conscience maybe?

 

 

Also here is an article on occasion of sin.  You should read it. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm

 

The rest of this is you avoiding the question. Maybe I wasn't clear, thats my own fault and yes its past my bedtime but I am a frequent sufferer of insomnia and it stinks so Im still here to push your buttons! :)

 

Essentially what I am saying is that near occasions of sin are not dependent on living situation. If you are in a committed relationship with someone regardless if you are or arent living with them has no baring on whether you will or wont be presented with a near occasion of sin.

 

Think about it. People are  in a committed relationship spend a lot of time living (ei doing things, spending time together, doing life stuff) together. They might not do it in the same house, they might not do it int he same state, but that does not eliminate near occasions of sin. 

 

If a couple was sitting on a couch watching a movie, would they be in a near occasion of sin? Put the same couple on a couch in a home they own together...are they now in a near occasion of sin? 

 

I would say that committed couples are definitely in near occasions of sin even if they dont live together. Thats why its hard. Thats why we praise them for remaining chaste! The reason Im saying youre inconsistent is because you are not admitting to this reality. You are smudging the lines for your own purposes and being rather nondescript. 

 

We always say that the thought is not sinful, but the action is. So where do you draw the line for those thoughts to be the result of purposefully putting yourself in a near occasion of sin. Is the committed couple who is watching a movie together committing mortal sin for putting themselves in a situation that causes inappropriate thoughts? Or is it only sinful if they are living together and watching a movie? Do you see what Im trying to high light?

 

Its kind of this all or nothing mentality that is not rooted in reality. Similar to what Lilllabettt argued with contraception; that all couples who used it were objectifying each other. 100% of them. No questions. I argued that you have no idea what their intentions are, and in that scenario intentions matter a lot. 

 

So similarly to this one (although not quite the same) you appear to be arguing that near occasions of sin in this context only appear if the committed, unmarried couple signs a lease. No? Is anyone else who is not as emotionally invested in uncovering personal motives willing to discuss this with me?

It appears Credo is having a hard time and would rather go after my personal life than the issue. If you must know, this topic came up with some friends of mine so I decided to bring it here. But I realize you have a hankering to attack me personally; its pretty obvious. You tend to follow me around, sort of like a fan boy or something...only in the creepy sense. I could throw some personal judgments of my own at you, but I wont because Im a better person than that. Although I suspect youre hold yourself to a higher moral code although that is now showing much right now as far as respect goes. But who am I to judge right?

 

You could send me a personal message if you are at all interested in learning about my personal life. I will be happy to read and and likely not respond because its none of your business. But I know you have no desire to extend any sort of honest charity towards me so I digress. But I will keep praying for you, Credo.

[CrossCuT]

Studies show those who cohabitated before marriage have incredibly higher chances of ending in divorce. So while not inherently immoral, it is a bad idea in general if you want to take every precaution in not getting divorced.

 

Thanks for the response FP! I guess my only question as to these studies would be, how can they rule out that cohabitation is the sole cause and not any other variable? I feel like age, maturity, mental/emotional status would have a much stronger pull on if people get divorced and not living together before marriage. 

 

I fail to see how this one detail is the cause of so much turmoil in the lives of couples as viewed by the church. I think it is more rooted in cultural and historical reasons...no so much moral or what have you. Although when something is told to us all out life growing up, we hold onto it tighter. We are less apt to question it etc. Not saying that this is the case with you FP, Im just musing in general.

 

I talked to my sister about it and it seems to boil down to "But you might have sex." Sure. But spending time together also increases the changes to might have sex. Right?

[Ice_nine]

I assume there are exceptions that could be made in extenuating circumstances, wherein the church would allow a couple to live together chastely prior to marriage? But that's probably a really small percentage.

[Anastasia13]

I think there is a lot more temptation when cohabitating, and even if it isn't a moral issue in and of itself, but to make a regular practice of living like that? Without extenuating circumstances, is that not inviting greater temptation into a relationship than needed for a close relationship? Is that what God would have us do?

[Benedictus]

Studies show those who cohabitated before marriage have incredibly higher chances of ending in divorce. So while not inherently immoral, it is a bad idea in general if you want to take every precaution in not getting divorced.

 

This seems to be the universal finding in all countries where research has been done. Although, it likely relates to couples who have lived together for a long period of time (with the majority probably having sex and some having children).
A study I read some years back explored the potential reasons why those who cohabitate and then marry have a higher risk of divorce. One factor was that they often got married as an attempt to redirect a relationship that was often under strain. The problems they had before resurface and then they end up getting a divorce.
i'd imagine serial cohabitation is a problem as well, even where they don't end up getting married. It's likely that the aims, values and expectations couples have before getting married also factor into the divorce rate. Couples who are religious, share the same ideals and so on are also less likely to divorce. Divorce, on the whole, has negative impacts on children and future marriage success.

But long term cohabitation is different to a short term live in without getting intimate. It maybe difficult and it does pose problems, such as tempatation and a risk of drifting into a lax situation. But this isn't a definate consequence.  I guess it'd ask why the couple just aren't getting married if that's their intention.  But if a couple live together a few months before the date of a wedding, or for other factors, with clear boundaries then I'd see less of a problem.





 

[Credo in Deum]

Avoiding the question raised. Are non married persons who spend their time under the same roof always in a near occasion of sin vs non married person who spend their time sometimes under the same roof always in a near occasion of sin?

 

Avoiding the question raised. Are non married persons who are dating/courting ever in a near occasion of sin?

 

I like left field. 

 

What I am pointing out is that spending time together is equal to spending time together. Regardless of the presence of a roof and four walls does not dictate the presence or absence of a near occasion of sin.

 

 

The rest of this is you avoiding the question. Maybe I wasn't clear, thats my own fault and yes its past my bedtime but I am a frequent sufferer of insomnia and it stinks so Im still here to push your buttons! :)

 

Essentially what I am saying is that near occasions of sin are not dependent on living situation. If you are in a committed relationship with someone regardless if you are or arent living with them has no baring on whether you will or wont be presented with a near occasion of sin.

 

Think about it. People are  in a committed relationship spend a lot of time living (ei doing things, spending time together, doing life stuff) together. They might not do it in the same house, they might not do it int he same state, but that does not eliminate near occasions of sin. 

 

If a couple was sitting on a couch watching a movie, would they be in a near occasion of sin? Put the same couple on a couch in a home they own together...are they now in a near occasion of sin? 

 

I would say that committed couples are definitely in near occasions of sin even if they dont live together. Thats why its hard. Thats why we praise them for remaining chaste! The reason Im saying youre inconsistent is because you are not admitting to this reality. You are smudging the lines for your own purposes and being rather nondescript. 

 

We always say that the thought is not sinful, but the action is. So where do you draw the line for those thoughts to be the result of purposefully putting yourself in a near occasion of sin. Is the committed couple who is watching a movie together committing mortal sin for putting themselves in a situation that causes inappropriate thoughts? Or is it only sinful if they are living together and watching a movie? Do you see what Im trying to high light?

 

Its kind of this all or nothing mentality that is not rooted in reality. Similar to what Lilllabettt argued with contraception; that all couples who used it were objectifying each other. 100% of them. No questions. I argued that you have no idea what their intentions are, and in that scenario intentions matter a lot. 

 

So similarly to this one (although not quite the same) you appear to be arguing that near occasions of sin in this context only appear if the committed, unmarried couple signs a lease. No? Is anyone else who is not as emotionally invested in uncovering personal motives willing to discuss this with me?

It appears Credo is having a hard time and would rather go after my personal life than the issue. If you must know, this topic came up with some friends of mine so I decided to bring it here. But I realize you have a hankering to attack me personally; its pretty obvious. You tend to follow me around, sort of like a fan boy or something...only in the creepy sense. I could throw some personal judgments of my own at you, but I wont because Im a better person than that. Although I suspect youre hold yourself to a higher moral code although that is now showing much right now as far as respect goes. But who am I to judge right?

 

You could send me a personal message if you are at all interested in learning about my personal life. I will be happy to read and and likely not respond because its none of your business. But I know you have no desire to extend any sort of honest charity towards me so I digress. But I will keep praying for you, Credo.

 

 

This conversation is fubar and I blame myself.  I originally started it as if I was talking to someone who understood the difference between remote occasions of sin and approximate occasions of sin.

 

The difference is listed here:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm

 

There isn't a point in continuing further if the differences between the two are not understood.  As for your accusation that I'm your "fanboy", I want to thank you for that.  I haven't had a good laugh in a long long time.  

[CrossCuT]

words. Still not answering the question. 

[CrossCuT]

This seems to be the universal finding in all countries where research has been done. Although, it likely relates to couples who have lived together for a long period of time (with the majority probably having sex and some having children).
A study I read some years back explored the potential reasons why those who cohabitate and then marry have a higher risk of divorce. One factor was that they often got married as an attempt to redirect a relationship that was often under strain. The problems they had before resurface and then they end up getting a divorce.
i'd imagine serial cohabitation is a problem as well, even where they don't end up getting married. It's likely that the aims, values and expectations couples have before getting married also factor into the divorce rate. Couples who are religious, share the same ideals and so on are also less likely to divorce. Divorce, on the whole, has negative impacts on children and future marriage success.

But long term cohabitation is different to a short term live in without getting intimate. It maybe difficult and it does pose problems, such as tempatation and a risk of drifting into a lax situation. But this isn't a definate consequence.  I guess it'd ask why the couple just aren't getting married if that's their intention.  But if a couple live together a few months before the date of a wedding, or for other factors, with clear boundaries then I'd see less of a problem.
 

 

Yeah I think you are correct here. I dont believe the living together part has much to do with it, but its the predisposition of the couple entering into it. Like you said earlier they will often do it as a "trial run". The only problems that arrise in that situation is that if they treat it as a trial run, is when a problem presents itself they will more likely use it as an excuse to say "Hey, guess it doesnt work!" instead of working together to fix the problem. Its all in the mentality and what not...imo.

 

I think cohabitation is fine as long as the relationship is mature enough to take that step in a healthy way. If they already have existing problems and strains, then it might not be the best choice. Its very subjective.

[KnightofChrist]

I'm probably going to upset people by saying this but cohabitation seems so easy that it is cowardly and fake. It's easy to say you love someone and move in with them, without having to proclaim that love publicly and vow and affirm publicly that you forsake all others for your beloved. I would not want to be with someone that left a way out of our relationship. Nor someone who did not have the guts to officially declare her love for me and officially forsake all other men for the love of me. 

[CrossCuT]

I'm probably going to upset people by saying this but cohabitation seems so easy that it is cowardly and fake. It's easy to say you love someone and move in with them, without having to proclaim that love publicly and vow and affirm publicly that you forsake all others for your beloved. I would not want to be with someone that left a way out of our relationship. Nor someone who did not have the guts to officially declare her love for me and officially forsake all other men for the love of me. 

 

Im not offended (not sure about anyone else)! Its merely a very judgmental point of view. :(

You cant look at someones relationship and pass judgment on it due to a variable that you think has significance. 

 

Not sure what any of it has to do with guts though...

[KnightofChrist]

Im not offended (not sure about anyone else)! Its merely a very judgmental point of view. :(

You cant look at someones relationship and pass judgment on it due to a variable that you think has significance. 

 

Not sure what any of it has to do with guts though...

 

I can name cowardly acts as cowardly acts, without committing the sin of judging others as only God should.

 

A father who abandons his family because he is afraid of commitment is coward. In like manner a man who cannot marry and proclaim that love publicly and forsake all other women for the woman he claims to love because he is afraid of a similar commitment is a coward.

[CrossCuT]

Ok...

[KnightofChrist]

It does upset me, because I've seem many women who I became friends with through my male friends greatly harmed by men who were selfish wimps. I have had so many male friends who cohabited with a woman, and ever single one has cohabited with at least two women. In many of the cases they secretly desired to be with other women, and avoided marriage because they did not want to make a commitment that would prevent them from doing so, others just wanted a way to escape so they could turn tail and run away if things got difficult. It all seemed so selfish, wimpy and childish to me. Even though most of the women they had lived with did want to marry them, and were more than willing to give up all others for them, only to have their hearts broken later.