toldailytopic: Shacking up. Is it wise for a couple to live together prior to marriag

[Melody Smythe]

Shacking Up?

Shacking Up?

Just the use of the word Shacking up lends itself to a negative action to participate in prior to marriage.

It is absolutely wrong, and not wise to "play house"

When God placed Adam&Eve in the Garden it certainly was not a trial run. It was for real and their actions had immediate consequences.

Shacking up, is very delusional, people rationalizing that you can't really know someone unless you live with them.

Although true you learn alot by living with your spouse, but living together prior marriage will tell you nothing that you need to know.

You can learn and know what is needed by respecting each others bodies and not violating their soul/spirit by stealing from each other.

 

[Buzzword]

A big chunk of the posts on this thread are reminding me why my wife and I picked "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now" by Jefferson Starship for the recessional at our wedding.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, I don't really believe someone that is just a girlfriend can cheat on you. In my mind, I haven't married them so I have no right to try to tell them what to do or expect them to be faithful to me. In the same way, them expecting that of me is kind of weird. I've stopped seeing several girls because of them thinking they owned me when they had no intentions of ever getting married or because we'd been together for too short of time to consider marriage.

:think:

It depends on the parties involved. If I'm involved with someone then I'm automatically choosing to be monogamous to that person before any wedding bells are ringing. I would consider it to be cheating if I saw someone else and I'd consider it the same if they did it too. Then again I'd only be interested in a mutually compatible relationship where we'd see such as monogamous to start with so I guess it's different for different people.....

 

[kmoney]

A big chunk of the posts on this thread are reminding me why my wife and I picked "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now" by Jefferson Starship for the recessional at our wedding.

Video

Good choice.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Good choice.

Thanks for the 10th grade flashback. The awkward teen years were a lot of fun. lain:

 

[Buzzword]

Good choice.

Thanks!

Our pastor was shocked that we even knew the song, being in our 20s and all.

 

[elohiym]

Now that's a problem. A woman needs windows to wash!

My man cave has windows, and a desk for my wife!

 

[kmoney]

My man cave has windows, and a desk for my wife!

You're doing it wrong. lain:

 

[kmoney]

Thanks for the 10th grade flashback. The awkward teen years were a lot of fun. lain:

You're welcome.

If the awkward teen years were fun, how are your awkward adult years going?

 

[elohiym]

This is getting close to the point I'd make about getting the union sanctified. See, while God of course could deem it a holy union just on the basis of Love, there are things that must be done to create a solid foundation for it.

When a man and woman form a union they become one flesh. That is not accomplished by any man through any ceremony. No religious ceremony is required to "sanctify" a union.

TM and her mate are one flesh, and no man's opinion can separate the two.

It's like a baptism ceremony in some ways. Yes God's grace is salvific but the baptism seals the deal on your part, the formal announcement of your commitment to Christ before brethern. Symbolic of the old you dying. A formal marriage works in much the same way, it's a formal announcement of the union before brethern. Symbolic of the new life or "union" beginning.

Without getting into baptism, no formal announcement is needed for the union of two people for it to be sanctified. That's a cultural concept.

Marriage in the Bible reflects the culture of the time. For example a man could have more than one wife legally, and concubines who are not wives. Just look around the world today at all the variations on marriage ceremonies.

Is the pagan-based marriage ceremony mainly used in the U.S. today really what God needs to see in order to sanctify a union? Isn't the union sanctified by the fact both parties have the Spirit of God within them?

 

[elohiym]

You're doing it wrong. lain:

I have a heterosexual man cave.

:Shimei:

 

[bybee]

When a man and woman form a union they become one flesh. That is not accomplished by any man through any ceremony. No religious ceremony is required to "sanctify" a union.

TM and her mate are one flesh, and no man's opinion can separate the two.



Without getting into baptism, no formal announcement is needed for the union of two people for it to be sanctified. That's a cultural concept.

Marriage in the Bible reflects the culture of the time. For example a man could have more than one wife legally, and concubines who are not wives. Just look around the world today at all the variations on marriage ceremonies.

Is the pagan-based marriage ceremony mainly used in the U.S. today really what God needs to see in order to sanctify a union? Isn't the union sanctified by the fact both parties have the Spirit of God within them?

Consider this, Upon the hospitalization or death of a non-married partner the surviving partner has no legal rights. The nearest next of kin may decide medical treatments, disposition of the body and the property listed in the deceased partner's name. If there are minor children surviving relatives may make a claim to raise them.
Logistics, from the perspective of the state can become a nasty tangled web.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

If the awkward teen years were fun, how are your awkward adult years going?

:Clete:


Some days are better than others!

 

[IgotsThis]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for December 9th, 2011 12:51 PM

toldailytopic: Shacking up. Is it wise for a couple to live together prior to marriage?

ofcourse,you kinda need to as well.

 

[Cleekster]

Well, I don't really believe someone that is just a girlfriend can cheat on you. In my mind, I haven't married them so I have no right to try to tell them what to do or expect them to be faithful to me. In the same way, them expecting that of me is kind of weird. I've stopped seeing several girls because of them thinking they owned me when they had no intentions of ever getting married or because we'd been together for too short of time to consider marriage.

Why should a woman get used to that only to have you expect her to be totally monogamous because you put a ring on her finger in front of a priest or whoever.

being committed does NOT mean that you own each other.....if you aren't totally committed BEFORE marriage....then why would she think that you're going to be committed AFTER marriage....just sayin'.

 

[MrRadish]

I must say, I'd find it incredibly disturbing to think of myself as 'owning' someone else* or being 'owned' by them**. I find possessiveness in relationships a very hard notion to get my head around, really, and whilst obviously I would never cheat on somebody (because the overwhelming majority of people would consider it an extremely upsetting betrayal of trust) I don't really get why some people feel they have have a right to impose themselves in the long-term as the sole focus of somebody else's life, rather than simply making the decision moment-by-moment, day-by-day and year-by-year to walk alongside that person because of the happiness both parties gain from it.


* Except in online gaming, when it happens ALL THE TIME.
** As above, except never.***
*** I don't actually do online gaming.

 

[bybee]

I must say, I'd find it incredibly disturbing to think of myself as 'owning' someone else* or being 'owned' by them**. I find possessiveness in relationships a very hard notion to get my head around, really, and whilst obviously I would never cheat on somebody (because the overwhelming majority of people would consider it an extremely upsetting betrayal of trust) I don't really get why some people feel they have have a right to impose themselves in the long-term as the sole focus of somebody else's life, rather than simply making the decision moment-by-moment, day-by-day and year-by-year to walk alongside that person because of the happiness both parties gain from it.


* Except in online gaming, when it happens ALL THE TIME.
** As above, except never.***
*** I don't actually do online gaming.

Life ain't always happy. My husband broke his leg in an accident. He was in a cast for seven months. We lost everything. We had four preschool age children. I went to work and he watched the kids whilst he was in a hip to toe cast. We were commited to getting through the hard times and the good times.

 

[Thunder's Muse]

When I was 18, I read 'Lord of the Flies'...a truly amazing book. Anyway, the book showed how society has these invisible boundaries that we all adhere to, in order for us to live in a civilised manner. The thing is, these boundaries don't really exist, except in our collective consciousness. It's a very small step to cross over and when those boundaries no longer apply, we simply revert back to being savage animals.

This book has had a huge impact on me and how I view things. To me, the ceremony of marriage is just another of the invisible boundaries we place on ourselves.. the idea that a simple ceremony can make a relationship 'real' or 'more committed' just doesn't make any sense to me.

Society seems way too preoccupied with the wedding itself (dress, flowers, cars, rings, etc)... when I don't really see what difference it makes to the relationship on an everyday basis...which is where real commitment is shown.

 

[Buzzword]

I must say, I'd find it incredibly disturbing to think of myself as 'owning' someone else* or being 'owned' by them**. I find possessiveness in relationships a very hard notion to get my head around, really, and whilst obviously I would never cheat on somebody (because the overwhelming majority of people would consider it an extremely upsetting betrayal of trust) I don't really get why some people feel they have have a right to impose themselves in the long-term as the sole focus of somebody else's life, rather than simply making the decision moment-by-moment, day-by-day and year-by-year to walk alongside that person because of the happiness both parties gain from it.


* Except in online gaming, when it happens ALL THE TIME.
** As above, except never.***
*** I don't actually do online gaming.

Building my identity around another person, and knowing they are doing the same, is the single most edifying experience of my entire life.

 

[MrRadish]

Life ain't always happy. My husband broke his leg in an accident. He was in a cast for seven months. We lost everything. We had four preschool age children. I went to work and he watched the kids whilst he was in a hip to toe cast. We were commited to getting through the hard times and the good times.

I do agree that having children does complicate matters and adds a strong element of obligation to a relationship. But aside from that, there being good and bad times seems to be beside the point. I'm not saying that a relationship has to be 100% laughter and smiles all the time; I'm saying that staying with somebody through thick and thin should be as a result of really loving them in the present and wanting to help them be well and happy, rather than because you signed a contract and gave them a piece of jewellery five years beforehand.

Building my identity around another person, and knowing they are doing the same, is the single most edifying experience of my entire life.

Suit yourself. Maybe it's because I come from a long line of single-parent families, but I find it slightly creepy when people come to define themselves through a single other person. I much prefer to see two independent, autonomous individuals who choose to spend their time together even though they don't have to, and could function perfectly well on their own. Otherwise it's like watching two one-legged men struggling along using each other as a crutch, bound together by the fact that if either of them leaves they'll both fall over.