Cohabitation

[Guest Freepagan]

When I was a christian, I was taught that cohabitation was utterly sinful. But even as a christian, I never could grasp the logic behind that teaching. I personally would rather cohabitate with someone while taking care of my own needs than get married and possibly divorce. I have strong opinions, especially about marriage. I do believe that marriage can work for some people. But I know myself well enough to know that it won't work for me. I'm getting more pressure to get married, pressure to view marriage as the ultimate rite of passage. But my opinion is that marriage is becoming a thing of the past. I've read articles about cohabiting, and in each article, the author assumes that cohabiting is supposed to lead to marriage. But does it really have to? I mean, what's so wrong with two consenting adults living together? Are they going to sexually assault each other if they are not married (my weird sarcasm)? Is it because of the lack of a certificate?

As an exchristian, I feel relieved that I don't have to get married to be considered an adult. I've always thought outside the box on this issue. There's an unwritten law in our society that says you're not a real adult unless you're married. And people unwittingly cater to that law by saying that I might find someone that will sweep me off my feet. But my views about friendship, marriage and living in general are more colorful now. I don't see the black and white world of single & unhappy vs. married & happy. That's why I know that cohabiting is best for me.

Any thoughts?

[Amethyst]

I think the idea of having to get married is very outdated. As long as you love each other, who cares what other people think?

[One_World]

I think the idea of having to get married is very outdated. As long as you love each other, who cares what other people think?

 

Ditto. It's all about procreation. If you want to move in with your significant other, better get married. And have babies too. ASAP. Christian babies. For the good of the Church.

 

I've never understood the cohabitation thing either, but then, what of the general doctrine makes any sense at all?

[upstarter]

I think it's interesting how our society defines marriage (yes I know some of you are snickering at me... stop that!) In this case I just mean, that if I was cohabiting with someone and I was committed to that relationship and I was building and maintaining a home and a life with that person, I'd consider myself married. With or without a certificate or a wedding.

 

So Freepagan, when you say that marriage is not for you, what do you mean? If you meet someone and you live with them, and maybe have kids with them, and build a life with them, how do you see that as being different from being married? Is it that you see that kind of relationship as being easier to dissolve than a marriage? Because once there is property and kids involved, it's just as complicated as a marriage in most cases.

 

Just one little aside: weddings are fun. If you find someone and you decide you might want to make a go of building a life with them... why not have a party? Doesn't have to be in a church, or even with an officiant. My SIL had a ceremony last summer, invited friends and family, had food and music and dancing and they said pretty committment words to each other and we all partied. It was great. I consider them married, but there was no minister, priest or JP there.

 

And at least here in Canada, after a year of living together, the government will consider them married too.

 

Heather

[white_raven23]

You aren't alone. More and more people are bucking the "expectations"

 

I really like this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Childfree-Loving-Nic...4771&sr=1-1

 

 

It refutes another "expectation" that gets rammed down our throats.

[MathGeek]

My state repealed their cohabitation law back in 2006. We are behind the times by far.

 

The same year, we made homosexual unions illegal. Go figure.

[Guest Freepagan]

I think it's interesting how our society defines marriage (yes I know some of you are snickering at me... stop that!) In this case I just mean, that if I was cohabiting with someone and I was committed to that relationship and I was building and maintaining a home and a life with that person, I'd consider myself married. With or without a certificate or a wedding.

 

So Freepagan, when you say that marriage is not for you, what do you mean? If you meet someone and you live with them, and maybe have kids with them, and build a life with them, how do you see that as being different from being married? Is it that you see that kind of relationship as being easier to dissolve than a marriage? Because once there is property and kids involved, it's just as complicated as a marriage in most cases.

 

Just one little aside: weddings are fun. If you find someone and you decide you might want to make a go of building a life with them... why not have a party? Doesn't have to be in a church, or even with an officiant. My SIL had a ceremony last summer, invited friends and family, had food and music and dancing and they said pretty committment words to each other and we all partied. It was great. I consider them married, but there was no minister, priest or JP there.

 

And at least here in Canada, after a year of living together, the government will consider them married too.

 

Heather

 

When I say that marriage is not for me, I mean fulfilling the traditional role of "housewife" is not for me. Sharing a loving relationship with someone under the same roof does not necessarily mean that I always cook, clean, and never work. Nor does it suggest that I will become a mother. And because our society still unconsciously defines marriage along those parameters, then it is not for me. I'm not afraid of commitment to a future partner. I realize that it's largely a matter of give and take. But I'm not committed to fulfilling society's expectations of what a "wife" should be like. I don't think there's a functional difference between cohabitation and most marriages. But at this point in time, it doesn't matter what I think so much. In the US, marriage is still considered first rate, and cohabitation second rate. It may take another generation before this line of thinking fades away.

[upstarter]

Freepagan, you need to get out of the south FAST! No one I know equates marriage with the woman becoming a cooking baby machine. Well, maybe my mom, but she's 70.

 

As I say, up here in Canada, no one really knows if you're married or not. If you have a committed relationship and you share a life and a family, you are considered married. No one would even ask. Well maybe xtians... but I stopped caring about their opinions a long time ago.

 

Heather

[hereticzero]

I want to comment on the idea of just living together.

 

Having worked with people filing for veterans benefits, if you live in a state that recognizes common law marriages, don't live in the same house with someone you are not married to or to whom you do not consider yourself married to. In a state that recognizes common law marriages, you may be recognized as being legally married if you spend one night together in that state and a child is born following the one night stand, or if you decide to tell someone you are a common law couple, you could find yourself on the wrong end of a law suit. While you may think you are just living with someone, you may wake up some day and discover you have to get a divorce from that person you are living with to get married to someone else. When someone is applying for benefits as a veteran or as a dependent of a veteran, the word 'relationship' means a lot. You can live with someone and not be divorced from your last partner--this starts a neat fight when the vet dies and leaves kids with his live-in girlfriend and with his wife that lives elsewhere and both families apply for his death benefits.

 

You should approach any relationship living with someone with caution. Keep your own place or make sure people know you are not in a living arrangement where you feel like a common law couple. A common law marriage does not mean you get a common law divorce by just leaving the other person. You must file a regular divorce to break up a common law marriage.

 

We are all adults, have sex with who we want to have sex with and live with whoever we want to live with but use some sense in relationships.

[SWIM]

I want to comment on the idea of just living together.

 

Having worked with people filing for veterans benefits, if you live in a state that recognizes common law marriages, don't live in the same house with someone you are not married to or to whom you do not consider yourself married to. In a state that recognizes common law marriages, you may be recognized as being legally married if you spend one night together in that state and a child is born following the one night stand, or if you decide to tell someone you are a common law couple, you could find yourself on the wrong end of a law suit.

 

I got a question about this. When ever the div gears stop turning in my life, "if" I ever get involved again it will be live-in not marrage.

 

The question is, how can this be? Surely if you had a male roommate you would not be common-law if you too were male, so why then, if I lived with a girlfriend, why would that be, where the other is not?

 

Also, I thought "years" had to pass, like 6 or 8 before common-law went into effect? I ask because many years ago before I was married I did live with a girl or two (or three) (you get it) does this mean I somehow have a string of ex-wives out there? Oh my!

[SWIM]

OK I answered my own question:

 

Which states recognize common law marriage?

Common law marriage is recognized only in the following states:

 

Alabama

Colorado

District of Columbia

Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)

Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)

Iowa

Kansas

Montana

New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)

Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Texas

Utah

 

And this:

 

What is a common law marriage?

In a handful of states (listed below), heterosexual couples can become legally married without a license or ceremony. This type of marriage is called a common law marriage. Contrary to popular belief, a common law marriage is not created when two people simply live together for a certain number of years. In order to have a valid common law marriage, the couple must do all of the following:

 

• live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
  
• hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and
  
• intend to be married.
  

When a common law marriage exists, the spouses receive the same legal treatment given to formally married couples, including the requirement that they go through a legal divorce to end the marriage.

 

Well, that means I don't have any spare wives running around out there... lol And it also means you can avoid this by avoiding those states in the list.

[hereticzero]

Potentially, one of them could claim you are their common law husband if at anytime during that live-in relationship you held yourselves out to be man and wife or signed a contract together, such as a utility bill, or had a child out of wedlock. Room mates are one thing but someone you live with and have sex with as well, is a relationship. A court can decide enough relationship exists to have a step-father paying child support for children that are not his--because he has been 'Daddy' in the relationship and the real father's where abouts are unknown. A court could also decide you owe your live-in gal pal alimony if you are the main bread-winner.

 

In one case, a vet had a girlfriend living with him and claimed they were a common law couple. He died. His legal wife and his current partner filed for death benefits. Who won? The live-in girlfriend because the relationship was established to show their intent was to live as man and wife. He had not lived with his legal wife for several years.

 

The definition of a common law marriage is not correct for all states. You only need to cohabit for one day in Colorado to be considered common law marriage--especially if a baby is born as the result of that one night. You do not have to use the same name--that is an out of date concept that a woman has to have her husband's name. The couple's 'intent' is everything. If one of the partners wants to cause the other harm because they were angry over the other moving out, they could start a whole bunch of legal problems for the other person. Normally, a couple who wants benefits for whatever reason applies for recognition as a married couple through common law. They don't want a ceremony or buy a license. So they live together and now they need to file for benefits. They complete several forms and include proof that they live together as man and wife in public by showing utility bills with both their names on it or a joint bank account, something that shows they believe they are married to each other. Then when they are recognized as having a common law marriage, they are entitled to the same benefits as any other married couple.

 

The problem arises when someone who simply lives with another person, having casual sex and all kinds of fun, and then they break up. One party says they were in a common law arrangement at one time and the other person left them holding the bills too. This shows up when, usually the man, decides to get married to someone else and then his old girlfriend shows up at the wedding madder than hell and causing a scene.

 

There are risks in living with someone. Protect yourself. Have separate checking accounts. Don't sign loans together. And, never sign anything as Mr. and Mrs..

[SWIM]

There are risks in living with someone. Protect yourself. Have separate checking accounts. Don't sign loans together. And, never sign anything as Mr. and Mrs..

 

Noted. Thanks for the info!

[gradstu09]

Seems like you are more upset with the sexist baggage that surrounds marriage and weddings than the idea of being legally committed to someone. I don't blame you one bit. Me: Relationship for 4ish years, cohabiting for 2...and no ceremony in sight. I'm at the age where a lot of my friends are getting married. Mostly they have good parties, so I am happy to be happy for them. But the expectations yes...you will get married, you will have kids, you will roll your eyes at the party planning (guys), you will be bridezilla (girls), you will change your name (girls), you will suffer through a bachelor party (guys), of course you will do all these things b/c that is what you are supposed to do....it seems stupid to me. A lot of the traditions (especially concerning women) are very sexist. A lot of them seem to have no meaning at all other than just being 'tradition'. What does that mean, anyway? Why not do something that is personally meaningful instead? But try to do that and you get a ton of backlash, especially if your family and friends are conservative or christian. Easier not to get married at all. And this doesn't even touch gay marriage and the unfairness of all that.

[florduh]

Freepie, you have been indoctrinated into a very narrow and outdated view of marriage!

 

The "housewife" role pretty much left us in the 1960s. I don't know any couples, married or not, that define roles of master and slave. One married man I know does ALL the housekeeping duties because he likes to. All the women (of working age) have careers or jobs. A legally recognized union can be beneficial or detrimental financially, depending on individual circumstances.

 

Commitment to me is the same with or without the paper.

 

(And I don't blame you for not liking housework!)

[wonderer]

We just got married - on March 8th, actually - after living together for 26 years. We didn't get married because of what other people think: in fact, when you've lived together as long as we had, everyone assumes you're married already. There are all sorts of reasons to get married, and all sorts of reasons to merely live together. In some states, you become married automatically, whether you get a license and have a ceremony or not, after living together for a certain number of years. In California, that's not the case, unless both people agree that they are, in fact, married.

 

But the idea that marriage is somehow going away is simply unfounded. In the US, at least, every aspect of our lives is increasingly subject to monitoring and regulation by government agencies. There's a license for everything, and there's a law for everything. For example, in most states (if not all), if you are not married, and don't have a written contract in lieu of it, such as a registered domestic partner contract (available where it exists to same-sex couples, but generally not to heterosexual couples), and your partner becomes critically ill or injured and ends up in intensive care, you are are not allowed to enter the room to visit. In the same circumstances, if one partner dies, any real or personal property or possessions that that partner owned - even gifts from you - would belong to his or her estate, and not to you. His relatives then will end up coming into your home and taking those things away, after months or years of probate, during which time you cannot dispose of any of it. If you both bought a house together, you could be forced to sell it, so the relatives could get their half - assuming your name is on the escrow papers, of course. If not, you would lose the house entirely, if you could not prove that you paid for half of it, and on, and on. Likewise, any money he or she may have had automatically goes to the estate, and not to you. If the partner left no will, then you, as the surviving partner, would have no say in how your partner would be buried, or where. Even if you knew that your partner wanted to donate his or her organs after death, but never got around to registering as a donor, you would have no say in the matter. I could go on, but I think I made my point.

 

Aside from the legal aspects of it, getting married is a step deeper into commitment. In our case, we were already committed to one another, but somehow, the ceremony and the spoken vows took our relationship to another plane. It's sharper and deeper than it was. Besides, it was incredibly romantic!

 

Marriage is not for everyone. Living together is sort of like playing house, and that can be a lot of fun. But marriage is definitely not going away.

 

 

rob

[Thackerie]

... if I was cohabiting with someone and I was committed to that relationship and I was building and maintaining a home and a life with that person, I'd consider myself married. With or without a certificate or a wedding.

 

Yes! Mr. Thackerie and I have been "married except in name" (i.e., living together in a committed relationship, etc. without a ceremony or certificate) for more than 16 and a half years now, following 2+ years of dating before living together. I am sort of thinking about making it "legal" when we hit the 20-year mark, mainly related to social security benefits and other boring business matters but also just because marriage after so many years of "living in sin" strikes me as humorous and would provide a good excuse for a party (wherein people would feel obligated to give us presents )

 

But, I've never really felt any compelling reason to have a wedding because I just don't see the point. We've already made our commitment to each other, the people who might have any reason to know (friends and family) do know and accept it, and our sleeping arrangements aren't anyone else's business.

[DarthOkkata]

When I was a christian, I was taught that cohabitation was utterly sinful. But even as a christian, I never could grasp the logic behind that teaching. I personally would rather cohabitate with someone while taking care of my own needs than get married and possibly divorce. I have strong opinions, especially about marriage. I do believe that marriage can work for some people. But I know myself well enough to know that it won't work for me. I'm getting more pressure to get married, pressure to view marriage as the ultimate rite of passage. But my opinion is that marriage is becoming a thing of the past. I've read articles about cohabiting, and in each article, the author assumes that cohabiting is supposed to lead to marriage. But does it really have to? I mean, what's so wrong with two consenting adults living together? Are they going to sexually assault each other if they are not married (my weird sarcasm)? Is it because of the lack of a certificate?

As an exchristian, I feel relieved that I don't have to get married to be considered an adult. I've always thought outside the box on this issue. There's an unwritten law in our society that says you're not a real adult unless you're married. And people unwittingly cater to that law by saying that I might find someone that will sweep me off my feet. But my views about friendship, marriage and living in general are more colorful now. I don't see the black and white world of single & unhappy vs. married & happy. That's why I know that cohabiting is best for me.

Any thoughts?

 

I've got nothing against people not wanting to get married. I might at some point do something like that, if I get into such a relationship. It's not something I'd require in a relationship though. I certainly wouldn't do it in a church as some sort of spiritual ceremony.

 

I'd do it for legal reasons though. Marriage is a contract, I'd put up with a wedding, but going to the courthouse and getting it done works just as well for me.

 

I don't see what it has to do with the sexual part of a relationship. The emotional and physical issues should already be ironed out by that point. It's more to do with property, health care, taxes, insurance, credit, etc. Pretty much just cutting through red tape a little easier and getting a tax break.

 

It just makes living together a bit simpler, and forces both parties to live up to issues that might come up should things go awry.

 

There are advantages to it, but only if you find yourself in the right position. For example, you wish to raise a child, or children together. It just makes that sort of situation easier to deal with. It's a legal union, I don't believe in spiritualism.

 

It just makes sense on a practical level for certain situations life might throw at you.

 

It's more a system of living within society as a team, and consolidating resources, than some sort of bond of mind, body, and soul.

 

It's got nothing to do with having some sort of ownership of someone else. No matter what some people think, thanks to their brainwashings.

[Jincks013]

When I was a christian, I was taught that cohabitation was utterly sinful. But even as a christian, I never could grasp the logic behind that teaching. I personally would rather cohabitate with someone while taking care of my own needs than get married and possibly divorce. I have strong opinions, especially about marriage. I do believe that marriage can work for some people. But I know myself well enough to know that it won't work for me. I'm getting more pressure to get married, pressure to view marriage as the ultimate rite of passage. But my opinion is that marriage is becoming a thing of the past. I've read articles about cohabiting, and in each article, the author assumes that cohabiting is supposed to lead to marriage. But does it really have to? I mean, what's so wrong with two consenting adults living together? Are they going to sexually assault each other if they are not married (my weird sarcasm)? Is it because of the lack of a certificate?

As an exchristian, I feel relieved that I don't have to get married to be considered an adult. I've always thought outside the box on this issue. There's an unwritten law in our society that says you're not a real adult unless you're married. And people unwittingly cater to that law by saying that I might find someone that will sweep me off my feet. But my views about friendship, marriage and living in general are more colorful now. I don't see the black and white world of single & unhappy vs. married & happy. That's why I know that cohabiting is best for me.

Any thoughts?

 

I love how you think!!

I am twice divorced and sworn off marriage forever. My last marriage in fact I really didn't want to get married but allowed myself to be persuaded 'because of the children" I have two, both girls. It was a horrible mistake and one that took 3 years and 15,000$ to fix.

Now I have been dating a wonderful man for three years, we are seriously talking about cohabitation but neither of us wants a slave band around our fingers. He's divorced, I'm divorced and at our ages (39 and 50) we don't see any point to getting married. Even thinking about living togather is a huge step for me. I am content with my life, my apartment decorated my way, my music playing, ect.

 

I think you are right about marriage being some societal right of passage; we are recognized as 'stable' in our places of work when married where single people are seen as less reliable due to our single status. Ever seen a single politician? That would be like going in prime time and running for office without being christian.. "Heyllo there Dan, I am running for President, I'm single and aethist.." so not going to happen.

Why is marriage viewed as stablizing? Married certainly is not a garuntee of happiness either. I was miserable married, we fought all the time, I am far happier single; I think when people realize that there is a chance your lover will leave when you act like a maggot there tends to be a lot more respect for each other and people won't be as cruel (mostly not always) then when married.

Married tells our societially trained heads that we have to 'stick it out' no matter what and being divorced or single is 'bad'.. ok I'm bad. Deal with it.

 

Marriage is not a cure all; it was a part of history but one that has outlived its usefullness.

[Guest Freepagan]

I love how you think!!

I am twice divorced and sworn off marriage forever. My last marriage in fact I really didn't want to get married but allowed myself to be persuaded 'because of the children" I have two, both girls. It was a horrible mistake and one that took 3 years and 15,000$ to fix.

Now I have been dating a wonderful man for three years, we are seriously talking about cohabitation but neither of us wants a slave band around our fingers. He's divorced, I'm divorced and at our ages (39 and 50) we don't see any point to getting married. Even thinking about living togather is a huge step for me. I am content with my life, my apartment decorated my way, my music playing, ect.

 

I think you are right about marriage being some societal right of passage; we are recognized as 'stable' in our places of work when married where single people are seen as less reliable due to our single status. Ever seen a single politician? That would be like going in prime time and running for office without being christian.. "Heyllo there Dan, I am running for President, I'm single and aethist.." so not going to happen.

Why is marriage viewed as stablizing? Married certainly is not a garuntee of happiness either. I was miserable married, we fought all the time, I am far happier single; I think when people realize that there is a chance your lover will leave when you act like a maggot there tends to be a lot more respect for each other and people won't be as cruel (mostly not always) then when married.

Married tells our societially trained heads that we have to 'stick it out' no matter what and being divorced or single is 'bad'.. ok I'm bad. Deal with it.

 

Marriage is not a cure all; it was a part of history but one that has outlived its usefullness.

 

Jincks,

You hit the nail on the head! Living together is not playing house unless you make it so. But many people buy into society's rules regarding relationships. I don't mean to be haughty, but I know myself pretty well, and I consider myself to be more stable than some married people. Yet, I am perceived as immature because of my single status.

I've heard people say things like "yes, we lived together for 15 years, but then we got married!" wtf?! I realize that being legally married brings certain financial benefits. But getting married does not necessarily crystallize a relationship. A loving relationship can stand on its own without the trappings of married life.

[SilentLoner]

Freepie, you have been indoctrinated into a very narrow and outdated view of marriage!

 

The "housewife" role pretty much left us in the 1960s. I don't know any couples, married or not, that define roles of master and slave. One married man I know does ALL the housekeeping duties because he likes to. All the women (of working age) have careers or jobs. A legally recognized union can be beneficial or detrimental financially, depending on individual circumstances.

 

ditto ^

 

Personally I would advise against cohabitation not for religious reasons, but its been shown to increase the chance of divorce.

Marriage to me is primarily as a legal matter, and pretty much central when children are involved.

 

And I find it somewhat irritating when people use the "just a piece of paper" argument. Under that line of thinking, would that also apply to the bill of rights and us constitution?

[Guest Freepagan]

Ever seen a single politician? That would be like going in prime time and running for office without being christian.. "Heyllo there Dan, I am running for President, I'm single and aethist.." so not going to happen.

 

Actually the secretary of state is single.

[DarthOkkata]

Actually the secretary of state is single.

 

Secretary of State is not a position you run for. The Cabinet positions are appointed, not elected.

[Jincks013]

Ever seen a single politician? That would be like going in prime time and running for office without being christian.. "Heyllo there Dan, I am running for President, I'm single and aethist.." so not going to happen.

 

Actually the secretary of state is single.

 

The Secretary of State is an appointed not elected position. Try to get elected that way. Rice isn't a canidate she's Bush's attempt at looking like he gives a damm..and failing miserably.