Well I lived with my H prior to getting married (mainly because my mom would not allow me to see him even though i was almost 20 years old). And although he did have an A a year ago i do not think it had anything to do with us living together. I do think it is something that you both need to POJA though.

For what it's worth (and I've only just read page 1) but in Canada, common law (i.e. living together) comes with the same priviledges and responsibilities as marriage anyway so the buyers/renters thing doesn't apply exactly the same way, at least not legally. You still claim each other on taxes, you can apply for loans and mortgages together. You can still get sued for support, custody, etc. etc. and you are still entitled to half the assets even if you didn't marry, didn't work and essentially just free-loaded off your live-in BF/GF.

That said, marriage does include a number of other bonds that common law does not. I'm refering to the in-laws, which all joking aside, you really do form an attachment to these people after marriage that just doesn't happen in common-law. These people also tend to support your relationship more so in marriage than in common law.

Religious differences are going to be a lot bigger than you think. When you have children, this could become a huge obstacle.

I would also like to add that I have no aversion to living together before marriage. I did so with my W-STBX and there is no connection that I can dream of between that and his A. But I am also Canadian and we seem to have slightly different attitudes up here about this (I spent 3+ years in the states and it was evident then as well). I'm not sure if it's our common-law laws or what but very few people have a problem with it. I would live together again before marrying again.

tst,
I believe that passage (2 Corinthians 6:14) was in response to particular problems that the believers in corinth were having
i am by no means righteous and she is by no means lawless
she does have a different world view, but i haven't met a single person, believer or not, who has my views on more than a few topics
to fulfil my aim, to please God, i plan on showing her the fruits of the spirit, respecting her and protecting her from disrespect, and helping her be the happiest and most content she can be.

i am convinced that she will also try to make me happy and content, (she has so far with almost everything she has done) and she has demonstrated unmatched empathy every time she has spoken to me about anything of importance

our goals are derived from different sources, but we end with the same result. she is no sodomite or immoral follower of idols. she believes in empathy and consideration of others and follows her beliefs unwaveringly

No, II Cor. 6:14-18 is very clear:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the Living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." Therefore, come out from them and be separate. Touch no unclean thing and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.


This is definitely a warning to protect the temple from anything that could cause uncleanliness, i.e., the world and the world's views. This warning is just as relevant today as it was then in Corinth.



If you are a Christian, I would point out to you that you are righteous through the Cross and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The verses above weren't talking about people having your same views about different topics. It is referring to unbelievers and believers. It's nice that you both look outside and can agree that the grass is green, and the trees are pretty, and that hungry people need fed, and injustices need corrected. But as a believer, you are instructed in Scripture to not be unevenly yoked with an unbeliever.



God finds pleasure in our obedience to Him.

It is wonderful that you want to witness Christ-like character to her. Those are all things we as believers should be showing to the world. But according to Scripture, you are not to yoke yourself with this person...not be in a partnership with someone who is not a follower of Christ.


What does this have to do with being obedient to your Lord?


If you have accepted Christ as your Savior, how can you follow this kind of thinking???



There aren't several paths to the Living God. There may be several paths to false gods, however.

Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

As a Christian, you cannot have two opinions here; either you believe the whole truth, or you reject it totally.


What is the "end result" that you are referring to here?



Maybe not. But she is also no believer, which is the relevant point in the Scripture.



There are a lot of nice, kind, compassionate people in the world. But there is only one path for those kind, compassionate people to walk to reach the Living God.

What beliefs does she follow unwaveringly?


Again, I am not bashing you at all or even being critical of EG's character. I am only asking you to honestly evaluate YOUR relationship with the Living God.

if we are to avoid all things unclean and reject non-believers,
why did jesus spent so much time teaching us to love everyone, regardless of their past, present, and future beliefs

"clean" and "unclean" refers to the old covenant, jesus changed that

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said anything about rejecting anyone.
My discussion is about being unevenly yoked.


Jesus did not embrace the world, He rejected the world's views and taught us to repent and believe in Him.




The passage I have been quoting is from the New Testament, i.e. New Covenant.

I think your arguing with me to avoid reconciling this issue with God. Your fight is with God, You might want to take it up with Him at this point.....
Good Luck.

Hi Tim,

I wouldn't get too caught up with the interpretation of 2 Cor in this case. And don't fight with God---your arms are too short...

For practical advice, I'd suggest that you two do a few things (and it sounds like it's already part of the plan):

1. Live near each other (same city) but separate residences. Learn to fend for yourself while you continue to date.

2. Order a couple of Harley's books---The One and I Promise You. Those will help you establish good behaviors for a successful marriage.

3. Be open to discussing your differences with a pastor (if you'll be married in a church) or perhaps with one of the Harley's before you tie the knot. They'll be able to give some perspective on issues that might confront you, and help you see and avoid pitfalls.

The statistics say living together before marriage increases the chances for divorce. It doesn't guarantee that you will divorce. In fact, the chances of divorce go up drastically once you marry <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> . If you learn and practice the behavior rules needed to nurture romantic love---you'll hopefully never be on this site again!

Good luck.

sorry, i didnt mean to put words in your mouth i just misunderstood the exact scope of application.

i know it's from the new testament, that's why it struck me as odd that they'd mention it
he rejected the worldly ways, but not the people of the world
if he'd done that we'd all be in a pickle

i wouldn't say i am fighting with God, i disagree with you on the interpretation

I would like to say my opinion to the poster without having anyone disparage me, comment negatively on it or say a word about it. I would like to simply SAY my opinion and the poster can either accept it or reject it.

Thanks everyone! I appreciate it!

Here is just my opinion. Take it or leave it:

*I would not marry anyone without living together first. But I would also not marry anyone without living on my own first.

I have had three long term relationships in my life and various dating experiances where I did not have sex. I am now happily married.

Before I married one of the boyfriends I dated for 14 years!, I tried living with him. We made it almost a year the first time and it was terrible. It showed clearly that we were incompatable in many many ways. I was in my 20's then and had lived on my own for 4 years before meeting him.

Yet I stayed dating him for all those years, who knows why....I was working hard and going to college. He was a friend but quite dysfunctional. I tried a second time living with him near the end of the relationship and it was a month before I gave up that idea of ever marrying him. Thank goodness I did not marry that man!!!! He was not the right one for me!

I lived a few times with women roomates. This was a good experiance to have also.

The next time I lived together with a man was when I met my now husband. We were turning 40 and fell in love. Six months after we met we moved in together. We did not want to make a compatability mistake, but we were quite sure we were meant for each other but we wanted to really see and get the feel of how it would be.

(Now we could learn if we were compatable by living together because each of us had tried living with others years before so we had that experiance plus we knew ourselves and had our identies solidified since we had each had a chance to live alone for some time, and we were mature and ready for marriage)

After living together for a year or so, and working the few difficulties out, we married. After marriage we had to work out more stuff but it went oK.

My husband told me at one point while living together that he would either "want to live with me forever" or get married to me and "live with me forever"... whichever way I wanted to do it........ he loved only me and would be with me forever. I gotta love him for that. I chose marriage. It was a no brainer at that point, we were a great match.

So if you are young in your 20's or so, then I would advise to live alone for a while to learn what it is like. Then, I would not be afraid of living with him if you were engaged, to try it out.

It is better to be SURE about compatability issues early on than jump into marriage and have kids and THEN find out you are incompatable.

Have you dated enough to KNOW this is the ONE for you?

Have you lived with roomates ever?

Stella, the idea here is to a) not live together until you already THINK you are compatible and b) be willing to do what it takes to MAKE YOURSELF COMPATIBLE.

Being compatible is a commitment and a willful DECISION, not a blind discovery mission. But that is not how it is treated in shack up situations.

In other words, if you discover an area of incompatibility you don't lovebust your way to the divorce court, instead you FIX the incompatibility. That is what a BUYER DOES. He FIXES the broken door or replaces the heater. A renter or a freeloader just moves on to the next rental.

Shacking up only CEMENTS the destructive mentality that one is looking for incompatible traits versus the buyer mentality that is a commitment to MAKE THE OTHER PERSON HAPPY FOR LIFE. A world of difference, which explains the HIGH DIVORCE RATE of shackers. [those who go onto get married, that is]

Your approach more closely fits that of the FREELOADER, who will only do what comes naturally. A BUYER, on the other hand, will do what it TAKES TO FIX UP THE PLACE.

A buyer is not committed to being MARRIED, per se, but committed to making the other person happy.

Have you read Buyers, Renters and Freeloaders by Dr. Harley? Which MB books do you have? It doesn't seem you have read ANYTHING HERE. Have you?

The "committment" of a shacker:

I will give you a chance to see if you are compatible with me. If not, I will kick you to the curb. easy come, easy go

The committment of a BUYER:

I promise to do what it takes to make us compatible, to make you happy FOR LIFE

hmmmmmmmmm, which one will I take? Frankly, I think people who get into these set ups, TRAIN their partner to TREAT them like a rental property instead of purchased home.

Like I told my 50 yr old girlfriend at work [who is OLD ENOUGH to know better] when her BF wanted to shack up instead of getting married, "honey, is you for RENT or is you for SALE?"

She decided she was not for rent. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

timpzed,

I didn't want you think we're just a bunch of old farts who don't keep up with the times. I wanted to give you some other good resources to continue your exploration of the effects of cohabitation before marriage. These facts site the research and you can look at each of those studies indidually too. So please, don't dismiss the advice you're getting as a generation gap problem, consider the overwhelming information about the risks of living together before marriage.

* On average, marriage preceded by cohabitation is 46% more likely to end in divorce. (Popenoe and Whitehead, "Should We Live Together?" 2002, p. 4, citing 1992 study by Alfred DeMaris & K. Vaninadha Rao, "Premarital Cohabitation & Subsequent Marital Stability in the U.S.: A Reassessment," Journal of Marriage and the Family 54)


* The risk is greatest for "serial" cohabitators who have had multiple relationships. Some studies indicate that those who live together with definite plans for marriage are at minimal risk; however, there are no positive effects from cohabiting. (Popenoe and Whitehead, "Should We Live Together?" p. 5-6)


* Social scientists have tried to determine whether some of the risk is due to the selection effect, i.e., that people who cohabit are already those who are more likely to divorce. While research shows the selection influence, most social scientists emphasize the causal effect, that is, cohabitation itself increases the chance of future marital problems and divorce. (Anne-Marie Ambert, "Cohabitation & Marriage: How are they related," 2005, p.18-19, www.vifamily.ca/library/cft/cohabitation.pdf; Stanley, Kline, & Markman, "The Inertia Hypothesis: Sliding vs. Deciding in the Development of Risk for Couples in Marriage," p. 6-8, www.bgsu.edu/organizations/cfdr/cohabitation/lead_papers/inertia_hypothesis.pdf)


* Cohabitation usually favors one partner over the other. Studies find that cohabitors are unequally committed. Often, the more committed partner is willing to put up with poor communication, unequal treatment, insecurity and abuse. Typically, women are more vulnerable, since they tend to be more committed. (Anne-Marie Ambert, "Cohabitation & Marriage: How are they related," 2005, p.13-15)


* Cohabitation puts children at risk. Forty percent of cohabiting households include children. After five years, one-half of these couples will have broken up, compared to 15% of married parents. (Whitehead, "Patterns & Predictors of Success & Failure in Marriage," p.7, from the 2005 colloquium "Promoting & Sustaining Marriage as a Community of Life & Love")

If you are determined to live together (couple of hard-headed younguns)....and have no intention of heeding the warnings....my advice for you guys is to get engaged, inform your families, and set a date. At least take that next step into a higher level of commitment. The risk is lowest for couples who lived together and were engaged.

Good Luck you guys....I think it's cool that you're at least asking questions!!

SF...did you mean to address that to TST or Timipzed???

oops! Thanks so much medc!

I would be interested in Canadian statistics on cohabitation vs. divorce. As I stated earlier, there is a different attitude up here regarding living together. There will be many, many factors that affect these statistics - for example family support. It was pretty evident when I lived in the US that most families do not support their relatives who chose to "live in sin" whereas in Canada, we do. I don't know if there are any Canadian stats on this, but I do know that homosexual partnerships (marriages here) have a better success rate in Canada which is mostly attributed to societal attitudes (we don't have a problem with it).

This is very true and Dr. Harley has mentioned this very thing on his radio show when he talks about shacking up. Women require an emotional CONNECTION to have sexual relations with a man, men do not. Because of this, women DO tend to be the more committed in the relationship, and often wrongly believe their partner is equally committed.

I recently saw this played out in my college son's life to my disappointment. He is shacking up with a girl I like very much. I always KNEW that he was not committed in any way, but SHE WAS. Sure enough, my son met someone he likes BETTER and his gf is as devastated as any BS we see here. My son was not committed, SHE IS. She put herself in a terrible situation and is now paying a very high price. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

p.s. and in my numerous discussions with my son about this, he INSISTED he was "committed." He was really only committed until something better came along.

Tabby,

This really isn't about "attitude"....these are statistics and studies. It has more to do with "math" than culture or attitudes.

However, <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> It just so happens that one of the largest studies....was done in Canada. Ask and you shall recieve:

Cohabitation and Divorce in Canada
abstract: Findings from various countries indicate that premarital cohabitation is linked to a higher risk of first marriage dissolution. A number of recent studies have argued that this "cohabitation effect" reflects the fact that cohabitors are a select group in ways that predispose them to divorce. This hypothesis was investigated using data on 8,177 ever-married individuals collected from a major Canadian survey. We found that premarital cohabitation was associated with a greater risk of divorce even after the effects of four sociodemographic factors that differentiate cohabitors--the presence of stepchildren, marital status of first spouse, parental divorce, and age heterogamy--were specified in a model of marital dissolution.

editted to fix the link

Tabby, the source of the problem is not society's attitude but one of the partners attitude. The approach is a renters or freeloaders mentality and that is not caused by society.

As we can see from this thread, the attitude of those who want to live together is "lets see if we are compatible" versus a buyer attitude, which is "I am committed to working out any incompatibilities and making you happy for life." The former attitude is most prevalent in shack up situations because there really is not a committment. If there was true committment, I suppose they would go to the trouble of making it legal. But, often they are not committed enough to do that.