|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Evangelical students & early marriage
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can't help but feel that this is yet another reason for evangelicals to take celibacy seriously, and not just as a punishment for certain Dead Horse groups.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
We have discussed this before. They do.
Except that they don't. Celibacy is viewed as the temporary blip before marriage unless you're unlucky enough to be gay. If celibacy was really valued as a calling from God (not to be applied to the whole of one group, and not to be forced or denied) then we'd be seeing an evangelical interpretation of the religious life.
Why aren't there evangelical religious communities if evangelicals value celibacy? It's just not valued as a calling equal to the priesthood or the religious life or any other calling.
I know you see me as an Anglo-Catholic who doesn't know shit about evangelicals, but the vast majority of my Christian life was in evangelical churches.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can't help but feel that this is yet another reason for evangelicals to take celibacy seriously, and not just as a punishment for certain Dead Horse groups.
If that's how they would interpret what I'm saying, their choice I suppose.
My view is the following:
- early marriage is not a good idea and often fails, including among Christians
- parenthood without financial stability is not a good idea
- divorce, and a breakup of a relationship involving children, are far worse outcomes than pre-marital sex or pre-marital cohabitation in and of themselves
The Christian ideal of course is for two believing virgins to marry. If a young Christian came to me asking for advice on what to do because she wanted to live with her boyfriend before marriage, I'd tell her that as long as they had shared values, she should get long-term birth control with no possibility for user error (IUD, implant) and wish them the best.
Whoops - I wasn't referring to your post specifically, but the entire thread. Apologies.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can't help but feel that this is yet another reason for evangelicals to take celibacy seriously, and not just as a punishment for certain Dead Horse groups.
If that's how they would interpret what I'm saying, their choice I suppose.
My view is the following:
- early marriage is not a good idea and often fails, including among Christians
- parenthood without financial stability is not a good idea
- divorce, and a breakup of a relationship involving children, are far worse outcomes than pre-marital sex or pre-marital cohabitation in and of themselves
The Christian ideal of course is for two believing virgins to marry. If a young Christian came to me asking for advice on what to do because she wanted to live with her boyfriend before marriage, I'd tell her that as long as they had shared values, she should get long-term birth control with no possibility for user error (IUD, implant) and wish them the best.
What's still not clear to me is your response cliffdweller's point above - why is the break up of a co-habitation any less traumatic than that of a marriage? Plenty of people get married young and don't have children for a long while.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can't help but feel that this is yet another reason for evangelicals to take celibacy seriously, and not just as a punishment for certain Dead Horse groups.
We have discussed this before. They do.
Except that they don't. Celibacy is viewed as the temporary blip before marriage unless you're unlucky enough to be gay. If celibacy was really valued as a calling from God (not to be applied to the whole of one group, and not to be forced or denied) then we'd be seeing an evangelical interpretation of the religious life.
Why aren't there evangelical religious communities if evangelicals value celibacy? It's just not valued as a calling equal to the priesthood or the religious life or any other calling.
I know you see me as an Anglo-Catholic who doesn't know shit about evangelicals, but the vast majority of my Christian life was in evangelical churches.
Sorry to double post. I know of several evangelical religious communities, and as I have said before, several of the big heroes of conservative evangelicalism were/are single and celibate.
My experience is different than yours - many people claim to be "single for the Gospel" and in my uni days, people had a rather gnostic view of singleness. Which is not to say that you don't know shit, but that you shouldn't generalise from your own experience to huge, sweeping, and inaccurate statements about all evangelicals.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What's still not clear to me is your response cliffdweller's point above - why is the break up of a co-habitation any less traumatic than that of a marriage? Plenty of people get married young and don't have children for a long while.
I thought I did - apologies. Marriage involves the state and community, the couple making promises in front of witnesses including loved ones and government-approved agents. Ending a marriage therefore has a wider impact than ending a non-marriage relationship.
It has no difference emotionally I'm sure - heartbreak is heartbreak - but it's inherently not the same to end a co-habiting relationship with no children, as it is to end a marriage with no children.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can't help but feel that this is yet another reason for evangelicals to take celibacy seriously, and not just as a punishment for certain Dead Horse groups.
We have discussed this before. They do.
Except that they don't. Celibacy is viewed as the temporary blip before marriage unless you're unlucky enough to be gay. If celibacy was really valued as a calling from God (not to be applied to the whole of one group, and not to be forced or denied) then we'd be seeing an evangelical interpretation of the religious life.
Why aren't there evangelical religious communities if evangelicals value celibacy? It's just not valued as a calling equal to the priesthood or the religious life or any other calling.
I know you see me as an Anglo-Catholic who doesn't know shit about evangelicals, but the vast majority of my Christian life was in evangelical churches.
Sorry to double post. I know of several evangelical religious communities, and as I have said before, several of the big heroes of conservative evangelicalism were/are single and celibate.
My experience is different than yours - many people claim to be "single for the Gospel" and in my uni days, people had a rather gnostic view of singleness. Which is not to say that you don't know shit, but that you shouldn't generalise from your own experience to huge, sweeping, and inaccurate statements about all evangelicals.
Fair enough, I admit that I struggle not to generalise about evangelicals and I apologise. Which evangelical communities? I can only think of the Jesus Army (and I would call them a cult so not really a positive example) and the evangelical Anglican religious community.
I do think that how celibacy is viewed for Dead Horse issues harms how it's seen generally though - even when it is seen positively, it will still carry the baggage of the Dead Horse implications. For churches with a longer and more concrete history of celibacy and religious communities, I see this less. However, speaking about the CoE more specifically, there's a real lack of information about celibacy as vocation generally and not just in evo circles.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
However, speaking about the CoE more specifically, there's a real lack of information about celibacy as vocation generally and not just in evo circles.
Jade, thank you for your gracious and eirenic response. Sorry for being narky!
In terms of communities, evangelicals I know are doing it in a quite..well...evangelical way. So it's not "the Order of the Blessed Stott" or whatever. Rather long term shared houses of single people who share everything. Being evangelical they are often missional in character, and sometimes the community includes couples, families and singles. I can think of a setup something like this in many of the urban churches I know of. Maybe you wouldn't count this - for several people I know this has been a significant way of living in community without total withdrawal from the world.
I agree with you about the lack of teaching on celibacy as a significant calling outside of discussion of sexuality. Nevertheless, evangelicals being Bible people, the instruction that it's better to be single (whatever that means) eventually surfaces and is applied, albeit sometimes clumsily IME. And as I said, I feel like my university days at a flagship evangelical Anglican church were somewhat dominated by the whole discussion!
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
However, speaking about the CoE more specifically, there's a real lack of information about celibacy as vocation generally and not just in evo circles.
Jade, thank you for your gracious and eirenic response. Sorry for being narky!
In terms of communities, evangelicals I know are doing it in a quite..well...evangelical way. So it's not "the Order of the Blessed Stott" or whatever. Rather long term shared houses of single people who share everything. Being evangelical they are often missional in character, and sometimes the community includes couples, families and singles. I can think of a setup something like this in many of the urban churches I know of. Maybe you wouldn't count this - for several people I know this has been a significant way of living in community without total withdrawal from the world.
I agree with you about the lack of teaching on celibacy as a significant calling outside of discussion of sexuality. Nevertheless, evangelicals being Bible people, the instruction that it's better to be single (whatever that means) eventually surfaces and is applied, albeit sometimes clumsily IME. And as I said, I feel like my university days at a flagship evangelical Anglican church were somewhat dominated by the whole discussion!
Oh I would totally count them - there are similar set ups in the Methodist church, for instance. I think they are good things and could do with more promotion (as could Protestant mainline ones and traditional religious communities), and inter-denominational promotion/dialogue at that.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
IIRC David Watson used to describe both marriage and celebacy as being spiritual gifts (not con evo but hey).
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[qb] Except that they don't. Celibacy is viewed as the temporary blip before marriage unless you're unlucky enough to be gay. If celibacy was really valued as a calling from God (not to be applied to the whole of one group, and not to be forced or denied) then we'd be seeing an evangelical interpretation of the religious life.
But for people who desire marriage and children, celibacy is a temporary blip - or at least it's hoped to be temporary. I'm not sure that emphasizing the value of celibacy as a calling for some, helps those who wish to be married.
The thing I think evangelical Christianity in particular fails at, is being unwilling to deal in a mature fashion with the "gray" area of committed couples who want to be married but for personal/educational/career reasons need to delay it. In the US they tend to just push early marriage (and apparently at some UK universities as well according to this thread) which have a high failure rate in the long run. In my evo CoE world it's simply ignored. Certainly no one said anything to me when I started attending church even though I was living with my fiancé.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[qb] Except that they don't. Celibacy is viewed as the temporary blip before marriage unless you're unlucky enough to be gay. If celibacy was really valued as a calling from God (not to be applied to the whole of one group, and not to be forced or denied) then we'd be seeing an evangelical interpretation of the religious life.
But for people who desire marriage and children, celibacy is a temporary blip - or at least it's hoped to be temporary. I'm not sure that emphasizing the value of celibacy as a calling for some, helps those who wish to be married.
The thing I think evangelical Christianity in particular fails at, is being unwilling to deal in a mature fashion with the "gray" area of committed couples who want to be married but for personal/educational/career reasons need to delay it. In the US they tend to just push early marriage (and apparently at some UK universities as well according to this thread) which have a high failure rate in the long run. In my evo CoE world it's simply ignored. Certainly no one said anything to me when I started attending church even though I was living with my fiancé.
I'm not sure I would equate "calling to celibacy" to "not wishing to get married." But anyway...
I guess in your church, your situation is "ignored" because by and large people don't like to comment on other people's sex lives unless invited to. I'm quite sure that there would be some advice proffered if you asked one of the clergy - or maybe you have done that?
It also varies from couple to couple, so I'm not sure you can give general advice to people in this situation. Personally I just don't share your view that, in reality, living together is less commitment than being married. I see it as having all the risks of marriage without the promise of permanence. But I realise that our mileage varies at that point.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I guess in your church, your situation is "ignored" because by and large people don't like to comment on other people's sex lives unless invited to. I'm quite sure that there would be some advice proffered if you asked one of the clergy - or maybe you have done that?
I came back to church six months before my wedding, so I didn't really think I needed advice. We had already taken the appropriate steps to "normalize" our situation.
quote:
Personally I just don't share your view that, in reality, living together is less commitment than being married. I see it as having all the risks of marriage without the promise of permanence. But I realise that our mileage varies at that point.
I'm not sure what you are objecting to, exactly.
On an emotional level, any relationship is a commitment and the end of one can be extremely painful regardless of its length or status.
Practically, ending a marriage is more complicated than ending a non-marriage relationship when children are not involved. Marriage is inherently more of a commitment because you have to file paperwork to enter into it and you have to do the same to get out of it. You have a ceremony in front of witnesses, so they are involved in it as well. If you belong to some churches a marriage is almost impossible to get out of (e.g. RCC) so that makes it even more of a commitment in that regard.
No one I know lives with someone without marrying them to avoid heartache. It's honestly not an idea I'd come across before reading it in this thread.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I guess in your church, your situation is "ignored" because by and large people don't like to comment on other people's sex lives unless invited to. I'm quite sure that there would be some advice proffered if you asked one of the clergy - or maybe you have done that?
I came back to church six months before my wedding, so I didn't really think I needed advice. We had already taken the appropriate steps to "normalize" our situation.
Yes, sorry, I wasn't trying to pry or criticise, merely to say that church's perceived silence on this issue - what to say to committed couples who aren't married - is often because people don't want to ask impertinent questions about people's living situations.
On the living together thing - I think my view would be similar to Lamb Chopped's up the thread - that being in a relationship that is genuinely committed will mean one partner or the other, or both, making significant career sacrifices. Marriage is the vehicle for making that commitment with the security of someone else's commitment to you.
As you said, the break up of any relationship is painful. If that's so, I'm not sure what problem is solved by saying "Practical considerations rule out marriage so we'll just live together." Surely all this does is make the heartache more likely, because you haven't promised to be committed to each other, or to sacrifice other considerations to live in the same place?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
seekingsister: quote:
Marriage is inherently more of a commitment because you have to file paperwork to enter into it and you have to do the same to get out of it. You have a ceremony in front of witnesses, so they are involved in it as well.
That's true. I think I understand where you're coming from now.
Of course, most of the above would also apply to buying a house together, but presumably if you are both expecting to move somewhere else in the not too distant future you'd be renting anyway.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
seekingsister:
quote:
The thing I think evangelical Christianity in particular fails at, is being unwilling to deal in a mature fashion with the "gray" area of committed couples who want to be married but for personal/educational/career reasons need to delay it.
The thing I'm still struggling with is why, if you want to get married and you're legally free to, you can't. Why you need to delay it.
I appreciate you'll find that frustrating, because you've given some examples up thread, but to me that just sounds like there's something more important to one person than the relationship (which is a reason not to get married), not that circumstances mean it's impossible. You might not be getting married in your perfect circumstances, but if you're so committed that you'll stay together through the whatever-means-you-can't-get-married then surely you can get married and still stay together. If you're not that committed, then you don't really want to get married.
At the very least you can get engaged ...
Or am I just suffering from a failure of imagination?
(Someone who suffered an over-long engagement because of Sensible Choices (that they wouldn't make again) writes)
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Well, I don't really understand it either, though I've got as far as understanding that some people feel that way.
Every marriage is a leap in the dark. It's just easier in some cases than others to pretend that you know what you're doing.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
The thing I'm still struggling with is why, if you want to get married and you're legally free to, you can't. Why you need to delay it.
It's pretty simple - the parties involve do not feel ready to be married! Perhaps for further education, or for work, or for fear of divorce. It doesn't really matter, does it? Why should people do something if they're not ready?
I have a problem with churches trying to tell couples who say "we love each other and are committed but feel like we need more time" that they should just bite the bullet and get married because they can sort it out as long as "Christ is at the center of the marriage." Because it's not true. God does not promise us that our marriages will last or be happy or healthy. There are evangelical churches out there peddling this nonsense and it leads to the marriages of my two friends that I mentioned, who ended up divorced by 22 thanks to the well-intentioned guidance of their pastors.
My opinion is that it's no more sinful to be intimate with a committed partner that you intend to marry, than it is to be divorced and remarried 2-3 times but be pure as driven snow prior to the wedding night. The latter seems to make a mockery of marriage in a way that the former doesn't.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Ah, OK. I can get with that. It's just that I would say those aren't people who want to be married, they are people who are thinking about and exploring whether they want to be married ("going out", "courting", "dating" whatever you want to label it).
So it's not about delaying getting married even though they want to, it's about not being sure in the first place. In which case yes, don't get married!
Unless (lightbulb) I'm mis-reading the thing about "want to get married" and you're meaning these are people who want to get married some day, to someone, as part of their desires for life, but don't necessarily want to get married right now, to this particular other?
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Maybe it's better to be divorced in your early twenties than to be divorced in your early or mid-forties, like most people? More time to get over it and a bigger and more decent pool of potential new partners. Especially if you're a Christian woman.
I think it's ironic that in an era when most people simply want to follow their own council on these matters, young Christians are choosing to attend conservative churches that try to deny them that freedom - and then chafing against the restrictions. Yet there are mainstream churches that welcome both evangelicals and non-evangelicals and make no attempt to lay down the law on when people should marry!
Interestingly, I understand that some of the black-led evangelical churches are more tolerant of cohabitation than some of the white ones are. There might be a lesson to be learnt here about flexibility and the need to understand the realities that people face. TBH, I think pragmatism plays a part in whether or how churches change the rules on these issues.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
The thing I'm still struggling with is why, if you want to get married and you're legally free to, you can't. Why you need to delay it.
It's pretty simple - the parties involve do not feel ready to be married! Perhaps for further education, or for work, or for fear of divorce. It doesn't really matter, does it? Why should people do something if they're not ready?
Well yes, clearly. But you seem to be saying the advice should be "well then, try living together." This is what is mysterious to me, not just from a Christian POV (although that is a factor TBH) but because there is no evidence living together before you are married helps your marriage be more successful.
I don't see why encouraging people towards the intimacy of marriage without the commitment of marriage is likely to lead to any better outcomes.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe it's better to be divorced in your early twenties than to be divorced in your early or mid-forties, like most people? More time to get over it and a bigger and more decent pool of potential new partners. Especially if you're a Christian woman.
It's better never to be divorced period.
quote:
I think it's ironic that in an era when most people simply want to follow their own council on these matters, young Christians are choosing to attend conservative churches that try to deny them that freedom - and then chafing against the restrictions.
I don't think this is true. I'm in a char-evo CoE network and as mentioned, no one ever had a word to say about my living situation before marriage. And I'm not the only one.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well yes, clearly. But you seem to be saying the advice should be "well then, try living together." This is what is mysterious to me, not just from a Christian POV (although that is a factor TBH) but because there is no evidence living together before you are married helps your marriage be more successful.
I believe this to be generational and expect in 20 years among the university educated that there will be almost no difference in the divorce likelihood of couples based on premarital cohabitation.
There's already a more updated study from earlier this year showing that the previous link between premarital cohabitation and divorce was exaggerated, and that the real issues are age and socioeconomic status.
TIME Magazine
quote:
A paper in the April issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family, but presented early to the Council on Contemporary Families says that past studies have overstated the risk of divorce for cohabiting couples. Arielle Kuperberg, assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, says that the important characteristic is not whether people lived together first, but how old they were when they decided to share a front door.
“It turns out that cohabitation doesn’t cause divorce and probably never did,” says Kuperberg. “What leads to divorce is when people move in with someone – with or without a marriage license – before they have the maturity and experience to choose compatible partners and to conduct themselves in ways that can sustain a long-term relationship.”
So what’s the magic age? Kuperberg says it’s unwise to either move in or get married before the age of 23. But other family experts say that’s lowballing it. Economist Evelyn Lehrer (University of Illinois-Chicago) says the longer people wait past 23, the more likely a marriage is to stick. In fact, Lehrer’s analysis of longitudinal data shows that for every year a woman waits to get married, right up until her early 30s, she reduces her chances of divorce. It’s possible that woman may also be reducing her chances of marriage, but Lehrer’s research suggests later marriages, while less conventional, may be more robust.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe it's better to be divorced in your early twenties than to be divorced in your early or mid-forties, like most people? More time to get over it and a bigger and more decent pool of potential new partners. Especially if you're a Christian woman.
It's better never to be divorced period.
True. But divorce is quite normal in our culture now - though I'm not convinced that it's more current among British evangelicals than it is in the rest of the population. The UK isn't the USA.
quote:
I'm in a char-evo CoE network and as mentioned, no one ever had a word to say about my living situation before marriage. And I'm not the only one.
That's democracy in action, then. Church leaders can't forever hold back the tide against the wishes of their members.
There's only a problem if people can't find or create the churches they need. This seems to be the problem outlined earlier in the thread: young Christians at university don't necessarily seem to reach the churches that might suit them best.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
The thing I'm still struggling with is why, if you want to get married and you're legally free to, you can't. Why you need to delay it.
In general I agree with you.
There are of course reasons people use to say they "can't" get married with which I don't agree -- primarily the ones related to the kind of ceremony and reception costing tens of thousands of dollars/pounds.
There are some specialised reasons for putting off the formal wedding, though, that seem to apply in a few cases -- creating a gray area as it were. In Canada, for example, the whole regime relating to student loans and associated debt may make it unwise to have a formal ceremony. And in some cases there are tax reasons.
Among the elderly (not where this started, I realise), there are also reasons related to pensions and the cost of care that may mean people who get married lose a third or half their joint income, making it difficult or impossible to live.
But then, I believe that those who formally commit to each other when they start to live together are married in moral terms anyway, whether ot not they've had a ceremony. And in Canada, in effect, if you've lived together for a certain time (1 year?) and present yourselves as a couple, you are "married" for tax and related purposes (though not for inheritance purposes) anyway.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
seekingsister: quote:
There's already a more updated study from earlier this year showing that the previous link between premarital cohabitation and divorce was exaggerated, and that the real issues are age and socioeconomic status.
Yes, but surely the age at which you get married (for the first time) is related to your socioeconomic status. Higher socioeconomic status is linked to higher levels of educational qualification, and a lot of people in full-time education prefer to delay their marriage until graduation - if only so that they can be assessed separately for any grants or bursaries that might be on offer.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well yes, clearly. But you seem to be saying the advice should be "well then, try living together." This is what is mysterious to me, not just from a Christian POV (although that is a factor TBH) but because there is no evidence living together before you are married helps your marriage be more successful.
I believe this to be generational and expect in 20 years among the university educated that there will be almost no difference in the divorce likelihood of couples based on premarital cohabitation.
Well I guess we'll see. (Although what I actually think you'd need to be sure of, to give the advice you are suggesting ,is that living together somehow improves the chances of marital success, given the Christian teaching involved. Rather than just not being relevant)
Interestingly, the advice from that research seems to be neither to move in together OR to get married before you are 23.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
I must admit that in all the evangelical circles I've moved in, I've seldom (though sometimes) sensed any greater pro-marriage culture than I have elsewhere. In the majority of evo shacks where I haven't sensed that push, if anything I've sensed the opposite: a recognition that single life can be hard but is some people's genuine situation, and they're not bad Christians because of that. I don't think evangelicals emphasise early marriage as The Right Thing To Do: some evangelical churches do, but it's impossible to generalise.
N.B. The issue of whether it's normal for evangelicals to hold up marriage as The Right Thing To Do (mostly not) is different from the issue of whether evangelical couples get married early in order to Put That There (I reckon so).
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
The thing I'm still struggling with is why, if you want to get married and you're legally free to, you can't. Why you need to delay it.
It's pretty simple - the parties involve do not feel ready to be married! Perhaps for further education, or for work, or for fear of divorce. It doesn't really matter, does it? Why should people do something if they're not ready?
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
(Someone who suffered an over-long engagement because of Sensible Choices (that they wouldn't make again) writes)
Whether or not people are ready to do something is a tricky question. Like Snags, I've been part of a few 'sensible decisions' that I'd decide differently if I could take them now. There will always be unknowns and things that seem like good reasons against making a decision, but at some point you need to stop letting them control you, and decide to take your preferred course of action no matter what.
The truth is, nobody can have it all in life and you need to choose what's important - and realise that it's a choice, not an inevitable consequence of forces beyond your control. So take the guy who leaves his EU regulation girlfriend to do the PhD in California: "I can't marry my girlfriend because I've got to start this PhD" is not an accurate assessment of the situation: that would be "I choose to dump my girlfriend because my career is more important to me".
(Single of stinking short-term contract-work writes)
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe it's better to be divorced in your early twenties than to be divorced in your early or mid-forties, like most people? More time to get over it and a bigger and more decent pool of potential new partners. Especially if you're a Christian woman.
It's better never to be divorced period.
Sure. But is it really SO MUCH worse for an early marriage to end in divorce than it is for an early co-habiting relationship to dissolve? Other than the legal entanglements of course. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why is one is considered SUCH a failure, but the other no big deal?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Reading through the thread, I'm getting two conflicting messages--first, that cohabitation is every bit as serious and committed as marriage, and second, that people ought to cohabit when they're not ready for marriage yet. Or maybe I'm getting confused?
It seems to me that if you [general you] intend to stay together permanently, both of you, till death, you ought to make that commitment public in the usual way by marrying. And if you don't intend to stay together permanently, but rather you're keeping your options open for the time being, then you ought to cohabit or stay celibate.
Right now it's hard to tell who's doing what. I mean, there are people who cohabit with the intent of permanence (sometimes only one of the couple has this intent), and there are people who marry with the intent (or at least, minus the dis-intent) of temporariness. That's screwy, and it makes it hard to figure out how to engrave the ice cream forks. Well, you know what I mean!
I wish we could get the signals sorted out in our cultures.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
That's screwy, and it makes it hard to figure out how to engrave the ice cream forks.
There it is: my new sig.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Right now it's hard to tell who's doing what.
I know what you mean.
Generally, I would say that co-habiting is not intended to be permanent (though it could become so), and marriage is. That's a bit generalisation, of course.
There are some things that screw things up a bit. In some legal jurisdictions there are tax benefits and other incentives to marriage, which will result in couples who are not sure if they want a permanent relationship getting married anyway. There are other couples who have philosophical objections to marriage as a legal state - why should the state have any involvement in private lives? Others who don't object to marriage, but do object to weddings - which become a social expectation of how it should be, often over inflated cost wise.
There is a certain amount of sense in cohabiting on the basis of "we love each other, we want to be together forever, but we're not sure if it'll work out so we'll live together for a while and find out", where "a while" is probably years (unless after a few months it's obviously going to be a disaster).
In some Christian churches, of course, such arrangements are frowned upon, or actively discouraged. Which basically leaves the option of a long courtship (without sharing homes) which may help clarify whether a relationship will work, but at the cost of additional housing expenses (which for recent graduates - just because it's the subject of the thread - may represent significant additional stresses on a relationship) and the frustration of limited opportunity for intimacy. Or, the option of jumping in with both feet and getting married. Probably neither are ideal.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sure. But is it really SO MUCH worse for an early marriage to end in divorce than it is for an early co-habiting relationship to dissolve? Other than the legal entanglements of course. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why is one is considered SUCH a failure, but the other no big deal?
I've not said anywhere that it's "no big deal."
When I got married around 200 people were there when we said vows. Such was not the case when we signed the lease to out first flat together. Those 200 people are witnesses to our promises and in our ceremony we had them all responding corporately that they would support us in our marriage.
This is a clear and obvious difference to me.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
... But is it really SO MUCH worse for an early marriage to end in divorce than it is for an early co-habiting relationship to dissolve? Other than the legal entanglements of course. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why is one is considered SUCH a failure, but the other no big deal?
Yes it is. In the one case, two people have merely agreed to live and bonk together until one of them decides not to. In the other, they have entered into commitments to each other for life. It can only end by one or both of them seriously breaking faith with the other.
Lamb Chopped has said something very important with her quote:
I mean, there are people who cohabit with the intent of permanence (sometimes only one of the couple has this intent)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which basically leaves the option of a long courtship (without sharing homes) which may help clarify whether a relationship will work, but at the cost of additional housing expenses (which for recent graduates - just because it's the subject of the thread - may represent significant additional stresses on a relationship) and the frustration of limited opportunity for intimacy. Or, the option of jumping in with both feet and getting married. Probably neither are ideal.
The case is yet to be made (at least as far as I can see) that co-habiting is more ideal than either of these options.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which basically leaves the option of a long courtship (without sharing homes) which may help clarify whether a relationship will work, but at the cost of additional housing expenses (which for recent graduates - just because it's the subject of the thread - may represent significant additional stresses on a relationship) and the frustration of limited opportunity for intimacy. Or, the option of jumping in with both feet and getting married. Probably neither are ideal.
The case is yet to be made (at least as far as I can see) that co-habiting is more ideal than either of these options.
There can't be a conclusive answer to this. But obviously for many people in many situations, co-habiting is more ideal than getting married to soon or living apart while dating for however long it takes to get to know the person well enough to be confident that marriage is the right choice (which could be years).
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which basically leaves the option of a long courtship (without sharing homes) which may help clarify whether a relationship will work, but at the cost of additional housing expenses (which for recent graduates - just because it's the subject of the thread - may represent significant additional stresses on a relationship) and the frustration of limited opportunity for intimacy. Or, the option of jumping in with both feet and getting married. Probably neither are ideal.
The case is yet to be made (at least as far as I can see) that co-habiting is more ideal than either of these options.
There can't be a conclusive answer to this. But obviously for many people in many situations, co-habiting is more ideal than getting married to soon or living apart while dating for however long it takes to get to know the person well enough to be confident that marriage is the right choice (which could be years).
I'm not sure this is obvious at all. Is the intimacy and sharing of marriage without the commitment of marriage really "obviously" better than saving the sharing of everything until you have actually decided you are able to do that? So it takes a long time? It should do to decide something with so much gravity.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm not sure this is obvious at all. Is the intimacy and sharing of marriage without the commitment of marriage really "obviously" better than saving the sharing of everything until you have actually decided you are able to do that? So it takes a long time? It should do to decide something with so much gravity.
For some people it must be, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
You seem to be saying that you can with certainty determine that co-habiting before marriage is bad for all couples in all situations. This can be a theological position of course, but practically I don't see how it works. Even if you take the older data that shows a higher rate of divorce among couples to co-habit before marriage - the majority of those couples DO stay together ultimately. How can we say that it was worse - if the best metric for success we have is length of the marriage.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm not sure this is obvious at all. Is the intimacy and sharing of marriage without the commitment of marriage really "obviously" better than saving the sharing of everything until you have actually decided you are able to do that? So it takes a long time? It should do to decide something with so much gravity.
For some people it must be, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
You seem to be saying that you can with certainty determine that co-habiting before marriage is bad for all couples in all situations. This can be a theological position of course, but practically I don't see how it works.
I don't think I am saying that. I think we were discussing what pastoral advice should be given to people who are committed, but not committed enough for marriage. I guess I'm saying both for theological reasons and those I have mentioned I don't think cohabiting is generally very good advice there. Of course lots of people do it - who can deny that - but I don't see any reason why recommending that over and above a long courtship or an "early" marriage is better.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I guess I'm saying both for theological reasons and those I have mentioned I don't think cohabiting is generally very good advice there. Of course lots of people do it - who can deny that - but I don't see any reason why recommending that over and above a long courtship or an "early" marriage is better.
Leaving aside the theological reasons - well, no, let's deal with them first. In my experience, the 'theological' reason that cohabiting was out was that it would lead people to suppose that you were Putting That There, which would be 1.) a bad witness to the world, and 2.) a leading astray of your brothers and sisters. So cohabiting is out even if there is no actual putting of that there. Which I view as a real pity, in hindsight. All the comments about 'try before you buy' so far have seemed to focus on the sex thing, but let me tell you, living with someone you are in a relationship with is massively different from living at home, or living in a hostel/frat house/whatever they're called in your area, or even living with flatmates. It's not comparable to any of these things, and as a result you are effectively called upon to make a life's commitment to someone without having any real idea of what living with them might actually entail. Of what their habits really are. In my case, I quickly realised I had no idea what my husband spent his time doing when he wasn't with me. The answer turned out to be online role-playing gaming. The schedule for this turned out to be from whenever he might usually have finished seeing me of an evening, through to two, three, or four in the morning. Followed by sleeping. This wasn't how my schedule worked, given that I was still actually taking classes, unlike Mr PhD student. It made things very difficult. It also made the PhD take longer.
Well, you will say, that's just one thing, and you have to work it out - you always have to compromise in relationships. Yes, but I think maybe if you have tried living together you might have more idea of what you will need to compromise about, and three hundred small things may come to have quite some significance when taken all together.
In my no-sex-no-cohabiting-before-marriage experience, we did try to be responsible and ensure we had broadly similar views on 'the important issues', which I remember being: Did we want to have kids? About when did we think we might want to do that? Did we feel similarly about money/debt?, and were we prepared to have my mother come and live with us at some point? (as she was always likely to have a long widowhood, given the age gap between my parents).
When in actual fact the questions should have been more like: How will we know we are agreed on issue X? How will we deal with a lack of agreement on issue X? And not, will we need to compromise, but how practically, will we compromise - what will that look like - how will we know if that is working? (if the unhappiness is reasonably equitably distributed, my cynical take). You can want, roughly all the same 'big things' in life as someone, on a similar sort of schedule, and still find that your life is full of tension because the two of you just have wholly different approaches to dealing with everyday life, with change, with bumps in the road - so on.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think a long courtship (like ours) can also answer those questions for you, provided you are seeing one another in everyday humdrum settings. I mean, washing the car or pooper scooping the backyard, not just going out to eat or driving in for a weekend. We went grocery shopping together, co-taught classes, he taught me how to drive, i failed to teach him how to swim, we had huge fights over minor pissy things (like a purple stripe in my hair), I identified marijuana plants for him, etc. After three-four years we had a pretty clear understanding of what the problem areas were likely to be. And how NOT to handle them.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sure. But is it really SO MUCH worse for an early marriage to end in divorce than it is for an early co-habiting relationship to dissolve? Other than the legal entanglements of course. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why is one is considered SUCH a failure, but the other no big deal?
I've not said anywhere that it's "no big deal."
When I got married around 200 people were there when we said vows. Such was not the case when we signed the lease to out first flat together. Those 200 people are witnesses to our promises and in our ceremony we had them all responding corporately that they would support us in our marriage.
This is a clear and obvious difference to me.
I can't certainly see why that support might make the success of your relationship more likely. But that wasn't my question.
[ 03. October 2014, 04:10: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which basically leaves the option of a long courtship (without sharing homes) which may help clarify whether a relationship will work, but at the cost of additional housing expenses (which for recent graduates - just because it's the subject of the thread - may represent significant additional stresses on a relationship) and the frustration of limited opportunity for intimacy. Or, the option of jumping in with both feet and getting married. Probably neither are ideal.
The case is yet to be made (at least as far as I can see) that co-habiting is more ideal than either of these options.
Yes-- this was the point I was trying to make.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think a long courtship (like ours) can also answer those questions for you, provided you are seeing one another in everyday humdrum settings. I mean, washing the car or pooper scooping the backyard, not just going out to eat or driving in for a weekend. We went grocery shopping together, co-taught classes, he taught me how to drive, i failed to teach him how to swim, we had huge fights over minor pissy things (like a purple stripe in my hair), I identified marijuana plants for him, etc. After three-four years we had a pretty clear understanding of what the problem areas were likely to be. And how NOT to handle them.
Four and a half years. I think probably the difference between my case and yours is that neither of us were 40 - we were both very young. Too young.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Nothing's fool proof. But for what little it's worth, I was eighteen when we began courting (he was just twice my age) and of the two of us, I suspect i was the more mature. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) Hope he isn't reading this!
But then, i was an eldest child of divorce and alcoholism. You grow up fast when you're responsible for the other kids. And you learn what you DON'T want in a spouse.
[ 03. October 2014, 04:48: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sure. But is it really SO MUCH worse for an early marriage to end in divorce than it is for an early co-habiting relationship to dissolve? Other than the legal entanglements of course. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why is one is considered SUCH a failure, but the other no big deal?
I've not said anywhere that it's "no big deal."
When I got married around 200 people were there when we said vows. Such was not the case when we signed the lease to out first flat together. Those 200 people are witnesses to our promises and in our ceremony we had them all responding corporately that they would support us in our marriage.
This is a clear and obvious difference to me.
I can't certainly see why that support might make the success of your relationship more likely. But that wasn't my question.
I've requoted your question, which was "I'm still trying to wrap my head around why is one is considered SUCH a failure, but the other no big deal?"
A divorce is considered SUCH a failure because of the social (let alone legal) contract that is at the core of marriage.
In my social community anyway, the point when someone's significant other goes from romantic partner to "part of the family" is when they get married, or when they have a child together. Ending relationships like this therefore also tend to have a wider emotional effect among a family.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
In my social community anyway, the point when someone's significant other goes from romantic partner to "part of the family" is when they get married, or when they have a child together. Ending relationships like this therefore also tend to have a wider emotional effect among a family.
I think my view is that you have already effectively made the social contract without the legal bit by having a "marriage-like" relationship, hence the break up tends to be just as painful. Someone in my extended family just got married to their long term partner after several years of living together, shared care for his kids, coming together to family events, inclusion of her kids into family gatherings, etc. If they were to split up now it will be really devastating for the family - it would have been just as upsetting several months ago pre-marriage.
That's why I would struggle to commend co-habiting - because people tend to see it as "marriage-lite" - a step towards the commitment of marriage but not that committed. In fact you seem to get all the shared life but without the security - for you or the wider network of relationships.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
In my social community anyway, the point when someone's significant other goes from romantic partner to "part of the family" is when they get married, or when they have a child together. Ending relationships like this therefore also tend to have a wider emotional effect among a family.
I think my view is that you have already effectively made the social contract without the legal bit by having a "marriage-like" relationship, hence the break up tends to be just as painful. Someone in my extended family just got married to their long term partner after several years of living together, shared care for his kids, coming together to family events, inclusion of her kids into family gatherings, etc. If they were to split up now it will be really devastating for the family - it would have been just as upsetting several months ago pre-marriage.
That's why I would struggle to commend co-habiting - because people tend to see it as "marriage-lite" - a step towards the commitment of marriage but not that committed. In fact you seem to get all the shared life but without the security - for you or the wider network of relationships.
That's my view as well. It seems like the promise being held forth by the co-habit first argument is just as hollow as the play-by-the rules and be blessed argument. The only advantage I can see of co-habitation is saving a bit of hassle during dissolution-- no legal entanglements (which also means of course less legal protection) and less social embarrassment. But those seem like small consolations in the midst of heartbreak.
But, as was said above, every case is so different, and there's no guarantees no matter what path you take. I don't know that my own story suggests any sort of model to follow. I married young (20) but after 4 years of steady dating so can't say we didn't know what we were getting into. We stayed together 11 years (1 child) but ultimately had a fairly messy divorce. Then 2 years later at 34 I married quick (after knowing each other only 6 months)-- we'll celebrate our 25th anniversary later this year.
Nothing there to emulate, I'm thinking. Just grateful for God's grace in all things.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I feel like we are all talking at cross purposes.
No one can know if co-habiting is better or worse than marriage because it differs from couple to couple.
All I'm doing is giving the rationale as to why myself and others chose to co-habit before marriage and the difference in those statuses in my experience.
The answers I'm getting seem to be trying to "prove" that there is no material difference, but it's impossible to "prove" how people feel about their relationships. You can only observe it and what anyone observes is what I am describing among people younger than 40.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I feel like we are all talking at cross purposes.
No one can know if co-habiting is better or worse than marriage because it differs from couple to couple.
I think we cross-posted there.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The answers I'm getting seem to be trying to "prove" that there is no material difference, but it's impossible to "prove" how people feel about their relationships.
We clearly are at cross purposes. I thought your opinion was that the recommendation of early marriage by churches was to be avoided, and were lamenting the silence that replaces that. I also thought you were saying that silence could be filled by the recommendation of co-habiting. I wasn't trying to make a comment on how anyone feels about their relationships (how could anyone know that?) but explaining why I don't think co-habitation solves the pastoral issue of courtship vs early marriage.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
