Posted on 07/31/2005 3:19:52 PM PDT by mlmr
So I have been trying to rent an apartment in my home...and all I have answering the ads are boyfriends and girlfriends. No matter what social status, no matter what income level, I am seeing unmarried twenty, thirty and forty year old couples who want to live together. If I question them, they don't even understand why I am asking.
These are Christians and Jews. I was so surprised to find that it would be so difficult to find a young married couple.
Tell me Dear Freeper...am I totally out of the ballgame to expect to find a young married couple? Am I expecting something that just isn't in our culture anymore?
>Its living together after marriage thats always been a problem for me.
Marriage isn't a word... it's a sentence. (just kidding, of course).
People were saying that it helps to know a person better, warts and all, before you make a full legal commitment.
By living together you're already making a pretty serious emotional commitment, and if that commitment is as serious as you both think it is before biting the bullet and choosing to move in together, it should survive that experience well enough to make you both want to move to the next step and make that commitment full and permanent.
You're living in Saudi Arabia, right?
Statistically, those who live together before marriage have a higher divorce rate than those who do not.
Biblically, it is wrong and there is no way to justify it.
Unfortunately, our society is much more interested in public opinion than in Biblical truth.
Somehow, SpringheelJack missed the "higher" part in his earlier responses on this point. The thing is, what God wants for us is what is good for us. What we willfully demand, in contrast, tends to hurt us. That's why "the wages of sin is death," and the price of shacking up is a less stable marriage in the future.
You test-drive a car because you are perfectly free to buy, sell, trade, redesign, or disassemble and reassemble cars or even leave them in the junkyard. A car is a commodity.
A person, though, is emotionally, spiritually, and physically designed to do one of two things when they have sexual relations:
#1 is what you do in marriage, because marriage (I'm talking about real marriage, which includes a sacred public vow of lifelong loyalty) is a secure setting for total, unreserved, heart-wide-open self-giving.
#2 is what you do in living-together. Even if it's living-together-with-option-to-marry. People WILL close up emotionally. They WILL train themselves to withhold ultimate trust. They WILL shield themselves from real openness, because there's a BIG possibility of a break-up, and emotional pain hurts like hell.
And people who do Option #2, living-together, can find it very difficult to transition inwardly into Option #1. They're not learning peace and trust. They're learning performance-anxiety, audition-anxiety, probation.
It's an inward thing. It affects the soul. I think there's a part of you that already knows this.
I don't know if I can ever make an honest man out of him . . . but at least I can get the law on my side. ;)
I don't quite get your point. Are you trying to shield your children from the fact that people who aren't married do live together? Wouldn't it be better, rather than trying to give them such a sheltered life, to discuss living arrangements, or whatever, with your children and tell them why you disagree, or agree, with those actions? I've raised my son to be aware of as much out there as possible, and hopefully given him the tools to make informed decisions in accordance with our values about his life and how he wants to live it. I can assure that your children will find out about couples having premarital sex sooner or later.
I haven't, but I don't think it contributes much to the discussion unless you think that marriage just in itself represents success. My parents have never divorced and hence would puff up your statistic, but their marriage isn't happy. Others who did live together before marriage have had far happier marriages. It all depends on the people.
I never made that analogy, Mrs. Don-o. Look back in the thread. I think the comparison is off the money, but rather than make an issue of it I thought I'd just keep it light and answer truthfully a car question.
Perhaps they stayed together "for the children." Not being sarcastic. In fact, the stats do indicate that the adult children of parents who stayed together--even when they might have preferred not to--are emotionally and otherwise better off than the children of those who sought greener (and younger and sexier) pastures. But living for others is evidently not your cup of tea. Which is why your marriage, like the marriages of so many people today who shack up to "test the merchandise," will probably not be what a marriage can be--and why your children will no doubt suffer for it.
Those words seem far too judgemental for my tastes, although I agree with you philosophically and on religious and moral grounds.
God still sits in His Heaven and His Spirit can and will influence the hearts and minds of men and women everywhere, urging them to turn to His Son and put on a new countenance. We help in that endeavor (at least in my experience) by witnessing in love and understanding as to His truth...and being direct where necessary, but avoiding being judgemental and offensive. Sometimes people will be offended no matter how we approach our witnessing...but I have not seen that in this particuar poster on this thread.
Just my opinion as weak as I am personally in trying to practise it.
But living for others is evidently not your cup of tea. Which is why your marriage, like the marriages of so many people today who shack up to "test the merchandise," will probably not be what a marriage can be--and why your children will no doubt suffer for it.
You assume things about me you're in no position to assume. Personally, I think the casualness with which you think you can judge, and predict the futures of people you don't even know (as well as their children!) has the chance to lead to its own set of problems --- in your marriage, in your children, in your life. But those who best know you can best say.
I like knowing as much as I can about someone before I commit myself to life with them. The decision is that important.
It's something to think about, though. I think for most women (not all, maybe, but most) it's the security of a good man's loyalty that makes it possible for her to experience real fulfillment and joy in sexual love. If a man says, "That's the one thing I choose to deprive you of. This is a test-drive" -- it's wrong. It hurts her heart. Hurts yours, too.
Sex is supposed to mean "we belong to each other." This is built into the language of the body. If you don't really belong to each other, it is a kind of untruth, because you are contradicting the message of your own flesh. Non-marital intercourse just drains the meaning out of sex.
I wish you well; I very sincerely do. I wish you true love, because it is an inestimable treasure.
I notice SpringheelJack quickly picked up on your comment. And why not? To those who deny the reality of evil, the only sin left is "judgmentalism," isn't it? Sorry, but I disagree with you. What we need is a whole lot MORE social disapproval of behavior that is destroying human lives. The children who are the ultimate victims of casual cohabitation and divorce (and the two go hand-in-hand) are voiceless in the whole matter. But they are made to pay the price for the selfishness of their parents, while the adults who might have been able to curb that selfishness by a sharply directed rebuke or two just sit idly by and "mind their own business". . . or perhaps even rent the shack-up couple their spare room.
How?
Hmmm...truthfully, if you don't know there's hardly a point in explaining it. But the implication is that women are only valuable as child-bearers...which in turn eliminates quite a few women, including older women, as having value.
Geez I can't believe I had to explain that!
Yes I do watch the news. The sinful,fallen condition of the world is pretty sad to see. I'm sure it grieves God greatly.
I'm coming closer to the conclusion that it is all a crapshoot greatly influenced by genetics (IOW, whether your parents have divorced or not). Would love to see some statistics on whether the chosen dating model (courtship/dating/living together) has a greater influence on the success of a relationship than paternal behavior or not.
So you would agree that there are people who should not be parents?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.