Hermenuetics

Comments

i'm very curious about the difference in the way cohabitation affects the long-term relationship for those who are dating versus those who are engaged.
no, engagement isn't marriage, but there is a level of commitment beyond dating.
do the sociological negatives hold fast in engaged-cohabitation?
--
i'm not looking for rationale for cohabitation, but transparency in the way information is presented.
the majority of my cohabiting acquaintances were engaged before cohabiting.

Posted By: alaina | July 16, 2009 11:40 AM

The reality is simple. There is no response that can work. First, a church, any church, has to face the fact that the cohabiting couple wants to cohabit. No one is holding a gun to their heads forcing them to. Second, they probably have friends who seriously wonder why people who appear otherwise sane are wasting good Sunday mornings, intended for sleeping after partying all Saturday night, in church at all. So if the church makes a point of objecting to them, it is against two very strong forces which will most likely cause the couple to find other things to do on Sunday, like sleep and their social support system will applaud their choice.

As far as child welfare goes, you are talking about young people at an age when children and their welfare are not even on the cultural radar. It is a waste of time to even bring the subject up to them. You might as well be talking about a rare disease in central Africa for all they will care.

Posted By: Chuck | July 16, 2009 12:24 PM

I think a little cohabitation could have prevented me from entering what turned out to be a very bad abusive marriage. There are just things you don't know unless you live with a person. Squaring this with Scripture ... well, that's another thing altogether.

Posted By: alison | July 16, 2009 3:39 PM

It's certainly true that you learn many more things about a person when you live with them, but you can learn all you need to know before it reaches that point if you're smart about it. Had you lived with an abusive person prior to marriage you would have still suffered the abuse, it just may have been a little easier to get out. But keep in mind that women almost ALWAYS end up on the short end of the stick in cohabitation relationships.

The cohabitation phenomenon began largely as a result of the sexual moral relativists who started taking hold of the culture in the 60's. As a teenager in the 70's my old country preacher used to call the new morality simply the "old immorality." At the time I thought he was an idiot. Turns out he was right, and the toll on society has been immeasurable.

I think it's no accident that those who termed a marriage license "just a piece of paper" back in the 70's are now among those calling for a re-definition of marriage now. It's hard to believe they have any real respect for marriage. They have an incapacity to see the destructiveness of what they've previously done, so they can't see the problem with what they are doing now, but they still have tremendous influence in our culture, particularly in the current political climate.

Posted By: Truthmeister | July 16, 2009 5:43 PM

It's certainly true that you learn many more things about a person when you live with them, but you can learn all you need to know before it reaches that point if you're smart about it. Had you lived with an abusive person prior to marriage you would have still suffered the abuse, it just may have been a little easier to get out. But keep in mind that women almost ALWAYS end up on the short end of the stick in cohabitation relationships.

The cohabitation phenomenon began largely as a result of the sexual moral relativists who started taking hold of the culture in the 60's. As a teenager in the 70's my old country preacher used to call the new morality simply the "old immorality." At the time I thought he was an idiot. Turns out he was right, and the toll on society has been immeasurable.

I think it's no accident that those who termed a marriage license "just a piece of paper" back in the 70's are now among those calling for a re-definition of marriage now. It's hard to believe they have any real respect for marriage. They have an incapacity to see the destructiveness of what they've previously done, so they can't see the problem with what they are doing now, but they still have tremendous influence in our culture, particularly in the current political climate.

Posted By: Truthmeister | July 16, 2009 5:44 PM

Notably absent from the Popenoe study is ANY support for the fearmongering put out by groups like Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage that gay marriage or gay civil unions are threatening "traditional" marriage.

Perhaps if churches and the Christian Right stopped telling young people things that plainly contradict what they can see in the world around them -- that gay couples threaten everyone else's marriage, that wives being "submissive" to their husbands is really good for women, that evolution is a hoax, that Terry Schiavo was still alive in some meaningful sense, that a 1-second old zygote has the same moral standing as a 1-year-old child, or that Sonia Sotomayor is a radical activist -- these same young people might be able to hear some valid things the church has to say about the value of a life-time marriage commitment, and many other things.

This article's assertion that "It is only through a sacramental view of sex and marriage that young adults have any hope of achieving and maintaining love, fidelity, and lifelong commitment ... Learning to love chastely before marriage strengthens the footing upon which a healthy union is built" is another of these exhortations that just doesn't jive with the real world experience of most people.

According to Popenoe, the 1960's sexual revolution "essentially gave premarital sex a social stamp of approval. The change mainly altered the sexual behavior of women; men had been violating the stricture against premarital sex for decades, even centuries, perhaps since the very invention of marriage, however furtive and with prostitutes if necessary. But prior to the 1960s most women, unlike men, remained virgins until marriage. And men wanted to marry and have children with women who had had no sexual experience."

Responsible, respectful, caring relationships, and marriage when it comes to kids -- yes, those are critical values to instill in our young adults. But, "no premarital sex, ever" has never really worked before, so there's no reason to think a return to that premise would be any more successful now.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | July 16, 2009 9:27 PM

"No premarital sex, ever." It worked for me. It works if you really want it to work. It did require the One who strengthens and like-minded friends.

Posted By: Mildred | July 16, 2009 10:20 PM

Traditional marriage is definitely declining in those countries where marriage has been re-defined to include homosexual parings, polygymists, etc. That is a simple fact. You can try and spin it anyway you want, but I think it's because marriage has simply lost its sacredness in those countries. And now it's happening here.

Christian Lawyer, in typical fashion, is illogically trying to paint those with traditional views with a broad brush, pulling in all sorts of irrelevant issues in order to throw rocks, not allowing for nuances with respect to specific issues. In addition to being irrational, it's simply insulting. But, sadly, it's typical of the disdain that the modern Left has developed for traditionalists.

The article's exhortations about chasteness and fidelity in marriage are not only reasonable, they are Biblical. Admittedly, we may not always achieve those high standards, but the antidote is surely not to set lower ones. That kind of thinking is what has led to the disastrous consequences we see in the traditional family today.

Posted By: Truthmeister | July 16, 2009 10:33 PM

Alison,

Popenoe wrote this in an earlier USA Today article:

Living together outside marriage increases the risk of domestic violence for women and the risk of physical and sexual abuse for children. One study found that the risk of domestic violence for women in cohabiting relationships was double that in married relationships; the risk is even greater for child abuse.

Chuck, I don't share your cynicism about young people.

Alaina, That's a good question. My husband and I struggled more with sexual temptation after we were engaged than before. We decided that a long engagement wasn't a good idea for us for a number of reasons, including that one.

Christian Lawyer, Chastity is a life-long discipline/calling for the Christian, whether married or not. We don't always live up to our calling, but we don't abandon it either.

Posted By: Christine A. Scheller | July 17, 2009 8:15 AM

Christine, I know the statistics. I'm just saying it didn't work for me.

Posted By: alison | July 17, 2009 11:16 AM

My wife and I didn't live together but lived in very close proximity (just over a block away) once we were engaged. We ate most meals together and spent most of our time together. I think that was very valuable as an "in-between" especially for those that have lived in different cities for much of their dating time.

Posted By: Adam S | July 17, 2009 12:39 PM

Alison, I meant no offense. I know what it is linger in hindsight. We assume we would have had better insight if circumstances had been different when in fact we might not have. All we can do is see the path in front of us with the information we have now and make better decisions.

Adam S., That sounds like it was a wise move.

Posted By: Christine A. Scheller | July 17, 2009 2:00 PM

I think Adam has the right idea. For all practical purposes (except for, I assume, the sex and the finances) they were living together.

Posted By: alison | July 17, 2009 6:57 PM

Actually the finances were shared as well, not that there was much to share.

What I think has not been properly shared and has taken years for my wife and I to really start getting, is the proper biblical roles of submission to one another. Marriage is never about putting ones self first, it is always about putting the other first. The real problem with living together (I am taking the morality of sex outside of marriage out of the picture here) is the lack of a real commitment. A real biblical commitment says, "no matter what I am staying with you because in the end both love and commitment is a choice". It is not possible to "try out" long term commitment, the very possibility of trying anything out says that you might not stick with it. Even marriages that did not include living together, but include one or both partners in a "let's try it out" frame of mind will not last.

Posted By: Adam S | July 18, 2009 3:13 AM

Adam is right. Studies show that those who live together prior to marriage tend to have a higher divorce rate. The real difference-maker is commitment, and that is dependent upon how highly you view marriage as a sacred institution.

Posted By: Truthmeister | July 18, 2009 10:07 AM

Christine, you can have whatever lifelong discipline/calling you want, and you're welcome to think that's the "only" way to be a Christian even if I disagree with you, but you've completely confused the issue of co-habitation and sex outside marriage. Even the author of the study seems to reject your premise as he candidly acknowledges that young marriage often has negative consequences and total abstinence before marriage is unlikely ever to be a social norm again (and when it previously was supposedly the social norm, the "norm" was actually only imposed on women).

I actually agree that living together before at least an engagement (which comes close to the commitment Adam S thoughtfully describes) can be more troublesome than beneficial. But, the article's leap from the study's report that cohabitation can be problematic to no sex before marriage is, well, just a big leap.

Truthmeister -- I was raised in a traditionalist family, but my family never tried to point to a tree and tell me it was a dog, or vice versa. That's my problem with groups like Focus on the Family. What they claim as "fact" often bears no resemblance to reality. That's what's irrational and insulting.

And, if it were so clearly a "simple fact" that gay marriage is having some negative effect on heterosexual marriage, as Truthmeister claims, you'd think the quite rigorous Popenoe study would have at least mentioned it. But no, that "fact" is just one of many made up by parts of the Christian Right. So sad.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | July 19, 2009 10:31 PM

I would think there is a call here for the church to reconsider its approach or attitude to marriage. NOT to shift our ground as to its sanctity or purity but the awkward way that we continue to relate to the "state". Because way back it seemed good to tie the churches needs and those of the state together we did so, and I think this has blurred our feelings and responses. (altho marriages in France still have two seperate ceremonies!)
Maybe its time to uncouple them? If a couple are genuinely committed to each other,want to live together, want to enjoy sex together, share their stuff etc , why not support this decision with the marriage vows, unconfirmed by the state? Let the state "try" to make their own new rules about marriage - which they are now doing anyway! Why shld their be any greater risk of divorce? The rate even among Christians is so high anyway. Isnt it time for the church to look to its own problems to help its own people. No one is living in a Christian nation anymore! (Or were we ever?)
This does introduce the problem of protection of personal assets and children, but maybe the church needs to look into its responsibilities and role in that area as well?

Posted By: Andrew | July 20, 2009 3:12 AM

My point earlier, incorrectly stated by Christian Lawyer (who appears to never tire of constructing straw man arguments), was that there is a strong association between declining heterosexual marriage rates and liberalized marriage laws in countries such as the Netherlands where marriage laws have been changed to include other definitions of "marriage." You can view that association as causal or incidental, or somewhere in between, I just happen to view it as primarily causal due to the prevailing view in some of those countries that marriage is no longer a holy or sacred institution (where, not coincidentally in my view, church attendance is way down.)

Posted By: Truthmeister | July 20, 2009 11:00 AM

Every middle school, high school, college age and singles teacher needs to research and drill into your students that living with someone before you are married is the single most distructive idea in our culture today. I am saddened to read some of the comments to this article that seem to say since society is going this way the church should also. The evidence is clear, more cohabitating means more divorce, more children with no father figure and more problems for society as a whole. It is time for the Church to take a stand for what is Gods law. If we as Christians do not, who will?

Posted By: Billy Reed | July 20, 2009 5:05 PM

Can any of you, including the other, cite your sources for the studies that show cohabitation causing higher divorce rates and negative impact on children? The data has changed since I was a student and studied this. I think we are missing the research to adequately discuss this.

Posted By: Stephanie | July 21, 2009 1:11 PM

Sorry I meant the AUTHOR, not other. The links the author provides detail reactions to cohabitation and history of, but not the actual studies we are using to prove points.

Posted By: Stephanie | July 21, 2009 1:14 PM

Well, as a young married person, I'd like to throw in my five cents. ;)

I was married a month shy of my 22nd birthday, which would have made my husband 24, and we recently celebrated our third anniversary. At that time, I'd been living away from home for four years, had two full years of post-secondary under my belt, and the wedding was the week after my second semester at trade school (with four semesters left to go). We were a couple for two years before we were married, one and a half of which were spent living in different parts of the country.

For starters, I'd like to know where Popenoe got the statistic that being married young hampers access to higher education, because that just sounds like fearmongering unless what he means is that being young *parents* hampers access to higher education. From a pragmatic perspective, being married with one partner working and the other in school - and, most significantly, no kids - meant less dependency on student loans. It also meant less stress, because I didn't have to worry about a roommate pulling some stupid stunt, and conflicts with my husband, while more bitter and emotional than conflicts with roommates, were in the end resolved in more satisfactory fashion. I went through a lot of trials at trade school, and looking back, it's evident how much my husband helped me through them. It was a mystery to most of my classmates, but there really isn't anything so good as coming home after a long day in the workshop to lounge with one's spouse.

More directly relevant to the article above is the fact that my husband and I not only didn't want to but didn't have the option, on a practical level, to live together prior to marriage. He was in his final year of college halfway across the country, and I was in the first year of a program on my end. The major benefit of not being able to spend the brunt of our time together was that we were forced to become very good verbal communicators in order to function as a couple. Even better, we were forced to learn how to be "together" without doing everything together. You probably all know couples who are so anxiously codependent that one partner can't so much as go to the grocery store without begging the other to come along. I'm not saying that being apart for so long was pleasant, or easy, but learning how to be together while being apart was a major blessing.

Those are definite perks to (young) marriage, but not the real reason why i believe marriage is a healthier, superior option to cohabitation. One can be strongly committed to a partner, or to a relationship, but if we're being honest about it, a formal marriage is a unique entity that commands a higher level of commitment than either of the two states mentioned above. On a pragmatic level, a formal marriage requires lots of time, effort, and money to dissolve. On a mystical level, it's just different. For one thing, cohabitation has no fixed term a la "'til death do us part" - it's an amorphous entity with no firm requirements regarding its length or depth of commitment. Writing earlier about conflict resolution, I wasn't suggesting that it was EASIER to resolve conflicts with my husband than with my roommate - the latter was easier, because it was entirely dependent on how much I liked or felt like putting up with that roommate. I often tell unmarried friends that the most important thing in my marriage isn't commitment to my husband. There are a days when I don't like, or don't even love my husband. People are inconsistent on a daily basis. The foundation of our marriage is, ultimately, the commitment to the marriage itself as something good and holy, and the willful submission to the requirement that neither of us act in a way to cause its dissolution, but agree to see that it ends only in death.

This is not to say I'm some wide-eyed naif who thinks that marriage automatically guarantees a lasting relationship and cohabitation doesn't. My father was committed only to hedonism, and discovered pretty early on in his marriage to my mom that that a wife and kids can really cramp the narcissist lifestyle - in his mind, marriage didn't mean words-you-can't-post-on-CT. All I'm trying to convey is that I believe having the bigger goal of staying married is better in the long run than the lesser goal of staying together. I'm in agreement with the commenter who noted that the concept of "trying" a long-term commitment is a falsity.

All this to say...I'm 25, and I've been married for three years, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. I've noticed a change in my sense of our relationship since we've been married. When we were dating, or when I was dating other people, six months or a year of being together seemed like soooooo long, this huge deal! But now that we've publicly and privately asserted that we're in it for the long haul, three years feels like nothing, a drop in the bucket, barely any time has passed. I now understand how people can be happily married after fifty years, and I smile at people's astonishment that we've been married for three whole ones and aren't bored of each other yet.

Posted By: elly | July 21, 2009 4:02 PM

I recently started having premarital sex with my boyfriend after three months of dating. I am also a dedicated Christian who attends church regularly. But I fail to see the relevance of abstaining from sex until the state issues me a license giving me official permission to do what comes natural. My Christian faith obligates me to treat everyone with respect, kindness and civility. Therefore, sex in a loving and committed relationship is a WONDERFUL gift from God.

Posted By: Adrienne Lance | July 21, 2009 6:45 PM

Stephanie, The citations are extensively footnoted. If you'd like to add others, please do.

Adrienne, Tell me, what do you make of passages like the ones below?

* 1 Thes. 4:3-4:"It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable."

The footnote [a] in New International version reads as follows: "Or learn to live with his own wife; or learn to acquire a wife."

* Ephesians 5:2-4: "And live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people."

* 1 Corinithians 6: 17-19: "But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own."

You say you started having sex after 3 months of dating. Why then? And what parameters would you suggest are appropriate for a faithful Christian?

Posted By: Christine A. Scheller | July 21, 2009 7:38 PM

Thank you, Christine. I didn't read through every link, but looking more closely at 2 of them I found sources cited within what you linked.

Posted By: Stephanie | July 22, 2009 4:44 PM

I would like that to say cohabiting is wrong in the eyes of God. Married symbolizing Christ(bridegrom and the Church(bride). Living together is NOT of GOD. I've only been married 4 mos and my husband and I did't live together because we both knew it was wrong. I'm so glad we didn't do that. I don't care how people rationlize it. God way is the only way.

Also to Andrienne and all who believe in cohabitation , I admonosh to read these scriptures below:
Hebrews 13:4 : "Marriage is honouable in all and the bed undefiled but whoremorgers (those having sex outside of marriage, )and adulters God will judge."
Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful, unbelieving, and the abodminable(ex:homosexuals), and murders, and whoremongers, and sorcers, and all liars shall have the part in lake of fire(hell) which burneth with fire and brimstone which is the second death. "

As you can see above, the bible says alot about sex outside of marriage whether you live together or not, you're homosexual or not. It covers everyone. So there will be no excuse. There are more but these are ones I believe are very important. God Bless

Posted By: Sherri | August 10, 2009 5:08 PM

To my fellow Jews, Christians and believers in the word of scripture:

It is the world of the flesh, lust and sexual sins that bring men and women down and cause them to ruin their temple and harm the spirit that dwells within them.
You cannot fornicate and expect to enter the kingdom of heaven, this includes using condoms. Outside of marriage it is not good that is why there is communion of souls. Belief is important. What ever happened to holding hands, good kisses, hugging and embracing each other with affection?
Greeting each other with a kiss on the cheek?
These small things help bring about love and encourage the spirit of love to grow from within. The small affections make a difference and help foster more love and virtue building on trust and fidelity.

I say turn away from whoredom, that is not the thinking cap of righteousness that God wants you to wear before you enter church to receive blessings, nor is harlotry a family value you would teach your children to grow into.

Song, dance, scripture. Stick with what works instead of darkening your light and losing your souls that are precious. It is difficult to have your Lord replenish and cleanse you if you are unwilling to do what is right in his eyes. Trust in HIM. He is pleased with believers, unbelief causes strife and hatred, more sin. This is not the message of the gospels, love your neighbor as thyself.

Find a good partner!

Posted By: Michael | August 10, 2009 5:39 PM

Marriage or cohabitation both concern relationships. Putting the needs of the other first is the bedrock of a happy marriage. What is the bedrock of cohabitation?

Posted By: Enid Scobie | August 11, 2009 9:58 AM

of course, this is on the rise in the church(es) as well, and i think much of the "blame" for the trend can be placed squarely at the feet of the modern church(es). first, we have lost our unity, second, we have lost the teaching about the intricacy between the eucharist and marriage. our teachings have become so watered down for fear, i think, of preaching anything that might be "divisive" lest we lose a church shopper to another church with a different stance.

so, we take fewer and fewer stances on anything.

the deepest answer we seem to teach about this issue is: "God's plan is that you don't have sex before marriage." i think for most people today, that's not much to go on...

Posted By: jt | August 25, 2009 11:23 AM