It’s called cohabitation, the progressive, enlightened, and politically correct term for old-fashioned shacking up.\u00a0 The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development reports that “cohabitation, once rare, is now the norm.”\u00a0 Roughly 10% of couples living together are not married.\u00a0 It used to be wrong, discussed in whispers.\u00a0 Our mothers would point to those who “lived together,” explaining in hushed tones they were not married.\u00a0 What changed?\u00a0 Were our mothers wrong?\u00a0<\/p>\n
If 10% of people participate in a behavior does that make it the ‘norm’?\u00a0 More important, does 10% of the people cohabitating make it right, make it healthy, or does it just make it more common than it used to be?\u00a0 Could cohabitating be the ‘norm’ and still wrong?\u00a0 Are values and morals a moving target, changing at the whims of society, abandoning any absolutes?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Moreover, has cohabitation developed into a workable alternative or precursor to marriage or is it still just plain, old fashioned shacking up with the same old problems re-packaged?\u00a0 USA Today pointed out that cohabiting with your spouse does not lead to a higher risk of divorce. \u00a0Data shows that is true only if you marry the only person with whom you cohabit.\u00a0 But, being involved in more than one cohabitating relationship raises the risk of divorce more than twofold.\u00a0 Further, only 50% of cohabitating couples get married and many people cohabit with more than one person, leaving more than 50% to move on with the twofold higher risk of divorce.\u00a0 The ‘norm’ may not be that great.\u00a0 Are the downsides of cohabitation pretty much unchanged, with a lack of commitment and a focus on self still the underlying themes?<\/p>\n
Some might argue that cohabitation has no more dismal outcomes than traditional marriage, so why the fuss?\u00a0 But aren’t failed marriages the result of people not able to honor the commitments they made, while ‘failed’ cohabitation is an expected outcome?\u00a0 The goal of marriage is a lifelong relationship, a lifelong commitment.\u00a0 The goal of cohabitation on the other hand, is nothing more than a trial run, not a commitment.\u00a0 There are too many people seeking divorces and too many people choosing cohabitation.\u00a0 Are these just two more examples of a deteriorating family, a deteriorating society?\u00a0 What are we missing?\u00a0<\/p>\n
Several years ago I heard Billy Graham make a statement about lifetime marriages, claiming they required much more commitment than love to survive.\u00a0 That statement fascinated me.\u00a0 Months later I was caring for a couple who had been married for over 70 years.\u00a0 After dealing with the medical issues, we sat and talked.\u00a0 I told them what Billy Graham said and asked what they thought of his statement.\u00a0 The husband responded rather quickly that Billy Graham was correct.\u00a0 I then asked if he had loved his wife this entire 70 plus years.\u00a0 He candidly responded, “No.”\u00a0 I asked if he would be willing to explain what he meant. He said there was “this time in the 50s when I did not love her; I was not even sure if I liked her much.”\u00a0 Asking how long those feelings lasted, I was surprised to learn he felt that way for over 5 years.\u00a0 A bit confused, I asked why he did not divorce her if he felt that way for so many years.\u00a0 I will never forget his answer.\u00a0 He matter-of-factly said, “I couldn’t divorce her.\u00a0 She was my wife.”<\/p>\n
Can cohabitation lead to the kind of feelings, the kind of commitment, the kind of love this old man expressed?\u00a0 Can cohabitation bring this kind of genuine commitment, this kind of joy and peace?\u00a0 Or is cohabitation just another way to avoid commitment? \u00a0This man understood what he promised when he married; he understood his commitment, his vows, his promise to his wife, and his promise to his God.\u00a0 There were no ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’ in his promise of “until death do us part.”\u00a0 Why did he stay?\u00a0 He stayed simply because he said he would.<\/p>\n
My father’s advice to have such a marriage was simple.\u00a0 He said there were two kinds of girls, the dating kind and the marrying kind.\u00a0 He cautioned I date only the marrying kind because marrying the dating kind would lead to unhappiness.\u00a0 Had he had a daughter, he would have given her the same advice.<\/p>\n
Do you think the dating kind might be more inclined to cohabit? \u00a0Do you think some divorces might be a result of the marrying kind mistakenly marrying the dating kind, hoping they will change once married?\u00a0 My father’s advice is more profound than I appreciated. \u00a0Perhaps the dating kind explains the rising prevalence of cohabitation and divorce.\u00a0 Perhaps the old couple were both the marrying kind.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Seek out the marrying kind for dating and marriage, living the old couples’ axiom, “I couldn’t divorce her.\u00a0 She was my wife.”<\/p>\n
![\"Reblog](\"http:\/\/img.zemanta.com\/reblog_e.png?x-id=b2761d27-7e2b-49e4-b70c-6b33d253ff67\")
<\/a>