Cohabitation Question

Faith & Science Conversation
1

The traditional christian view on cohabitation is a strong “no”. Some might argue that its not cohabitation as the Bible doesn’t speak out on it directly, but instead fornication which typically happens during cohabitation.

My question is why its wrong. Sure from a religious perspective its wrong because God said so, but why is it “wrong” from a scientific perspective? There are some studies that do seem to show a correlation between cohabitation and divorce rates, but correlation is not equal to causation.

If we are the only species to have marriage, which in itself is a social construct, why is cohabitation wrong? If we look at other monogamous animals, they seem to simply pick out a fit partner, reproduce, and share the responsibilities of raising their young together. No social construct of marriage to display to others that they are together. Even for humans, wouldnt “dating” be enough to let people know you are together with another person?

Maybe I have some incorrect assumptions i’m making or am ignorant of the science of marriage and such, but Id like to know what other peoples thoughts are on this.

2

@Ben_Lee

The rules against casual-but-notorious sexual activity is a mosaic of social and psychological constructs. But one of the four distinct Essene sects had a very unusual approach:

The Qumran-Essene Restraints on Marriage, Joseph Baumgarten. | Center for Online Judaic Studies.

While most Church Fathers and historians like Josephus described Essenes as celibate, some sources mention a branch that married, focusing strictly on procreation, with details suggesting a potential 3-year probation for wives to prove fertility before full union, emphasizing self-control and duty over pleasure, though specifics vary between accounts.

This marriage practice aimed at community continuity, not lust, involving strict rules for intercourse, with some scholars pointing to Josephus as the source for these marital specifics, contrasting with the general celibacy of other Essene groups.

This marriage practice might explain how Jesus and his special Mary could spend so much time together without being formally married. This practice was also a mercy for women, since being doomed to a sterile marriage (when a different biological mate could still be obtained) would help create MORE grandchildren.

3

I think you’re asking the wrong question. Speaking as a married 76-year old, white male in Los Angeles, I have cohabited with about 9 other people (6 women & 3 men) and I’ve also cohabited with 1 specific woman with an intent to marry. I can comfortably tell you frankly: science can evaluate outcomes and risks but it cannot by itself pronounce cohabitation “wrong”. Research can, however, still support a prudential caution. If you want to continue discussion, I’m going to insist that we do so privately.”

2 Likes
4

I hope these studies also considered the statistical connection between marriage and divorce.
</sarcasm>

1 Like
5

It strikes me that this question (OP) is more social than either theology or science There is a logic in trying before you buy or commit.
Perhaps it is more human ethics than Godly ones? The Ten commandments specify adultery not promiscuity or casual sex. There are even medical justifications for sexual activity that would suggest that, if you are not in a sexual union then, finding a release (having sex) could be seen as almost essential.
I suspect that detailed scriptural investigation on the subject may not be as conclusive as we would hope or even believe.

Richard

6

What we call marriage has different forms in different cultures. What seems to be common is that it is a socially and often legally binding commitment between two persons and in many societies, also between families - not just living together but being a unit in the social structure. If you are just living together, you can leave whenever you want but in officially recognized marriages, divorce is a more complicated matter - you are tied to the other person through social and often.legal responsibilities. It shows that a key difference is in the level of commitment - a marriage is a commitment while just living together means that one or both persons have not really committed to being with the other person.

From the perspective of science, there are no wrong alternatives. Science cannot tell what is right or wrong, just record what is observed. In natiure, there are a multitude of alternatives how animals pair and reproduce. We could make a list of these but it would not tell anything about the ethical side of the question.

Religion is just one viewpoint to the issue but it is influential to those who believe and want to live according to the will of God.
This ties the question to two points:

  1. motivation: how important is the revealed will of God for you - do you want to live according to it?
  2. if you want to obey God, what is the will of God?
4 Likes
7

Christian sexual ethics are not based on science, they are based on interpretations of Christian moral imperatives about the most loving way and selfless way to treat others. People who say OT laws are scientific deep down are the kinds of people who think the Bible is some kind of guidebook to life with secret wisdom. For example, the Levitical codes about menstruation and ejaculation are based on ANE superstitions and ideas about ritutal purity and impurity (see anthropologist Mary Douglas), they aren’t based on secret insights about hygiene, health, or biology.

In many cultures around the world, moving in with a partner IS a marriage, it’s more a feature of modern civil society that marriage is a separate legal contract with legal ramifications. Humans have societies and cultures, so it’s not quite informative to pretend we are penguins (who actually do recognize other penguins’ mates) or other animals who don’t marry to mate.

There are Christians who have argued that in modern Western culture, interpretation of traditional Christian sexual ethics and ethics on marriage and divorce should be revisited in light of emerging and changing understandings of gender, gender roles, financial independence, family, consent, community, women’s equality, same-sex attraction, and other constructs that had no parallel in the ancient Near East. These treatments of the subject are often book-length or involve hour long podcast discussions, so no one is going to be able to do them justice here. Maybe someone who has explored the issue more could offer some suggestions that charitably treat the strengths and weaknesses of different takes on the matter.

As it stands many/most Christian denominations are going to insist that premarital sexual relations and all non-gender conforming, polyamorous, non-monogamous, or same-sex romantic relationships are outside the bounds of traditional Christian sexual ethics.

A number of mainline or progressive denominations have more lattitude for consensual adult monagamous sexual relationships outside of (heterosexual) marriage, and they have their interpretations and ethical justifications, and parameters, it’s not just anything goes, and it’s not “science” either.

4 Likes
8

The Levitical law considered young women the property of their fathers until they were sold to husbands via a bride price system. It’s distasteful to us to day, but adultery and rape laws were more about violating a man’s property rights, than violating “marriage vows of faithfulness” or a woman’s bodily autonomy. Promiscuity with a young woman who was not a prostitute would have devalued her as property and that would have been the main issue. This is yet another reason why we should interpret and apply ancient ethics carefully to our modern context and try to figure out the principles of justice and compassion that were behind them, not treat them like some magical absolute law of the moral universe.

Oh stop with this incel manosphere nonsense. No one needs sex and humans can be perfectly healthy without it.

4 Likes
9

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that sex is good for your health. Whether complete abstinence is detrimental is probably less easy to demonstrate. And, yes, it may be different for men and women.

It is almost certainly not worth a major discussion

Richard

10

“Sex” in these contexts is shorthand for healthy consensual relationships, not copulation/orgasm. “Sexual release” is something an individual experiences, and “sex” is a partnered activity. There is plenty of research documenting that when men believe they are entitled to “sexual release” via partnered sex without regard for their partner’s consent, desire, or satisfaction in the activity, it does not lead to healthy relationships and can be demonstrably detrimental to women’s sexual health. Supportive marriages with good communication and educated and unselfish partners tend to create the kinds of environments where sex is good for both partners’ health.

See for example (McElroy and Perry 2024): The Gender Gap in Partnered Orgasm: A Scoping Review of Evidence with Graphical Comparisons - PubMed

2 Likes
11

Sorry, I appear to have hit a nerve. I do not condone forced or unconsential sex in any context, marriage or otherwise.

Richard

2 Likes
12

That’s good. There is a whole wider discourse happening right now in Christian nationalist circles and with people who have the ear of powerful people in which individuals are defending marital rape, insinuating women deprive men of sex they are “owed” to manipulate them, and defending pedophiles and the idea that post-pubescent teens are “ripe” for marriage or being used sexually by men who cannot biologically suppress their “needs.” All in the context of calls for repealing the 19th Amendment. So yes, tread lightly, the feminists among you have no flippity-flips left to give when it comes to feeling sorry for how hard life is for men with penis problems.

3 Likes
13

There is a joke there somewhere, but this is a family friendly forum, for the most part. Being post-prostatectomy and radiation, now on hormone suppressive therapy, I guess I am a man with penis problems, but on the other end of the spectrum. Most of it is between my ears, admittedly. :wink:

Back to the original question, I don’t think science has a lot to say about it, but I do struggle with how the biblical teachings of becoming one flesh in both Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings apply in our current society, where multiple sexual partners is the norm, it seems. I do feel that it is true in that you bring those past sexual experiences into any new relationships you may have, and while we have forgiveness and grace, that does not change the reality of that. I suppose the science or medical impact of that, is that things like HPV, herpes, and HIV become physically part of you as well. Some in medicine say that your medical “body count” is not just the number of sexual partners you have had, but also the number of sexual partners your partners have had. I personally know someone who died of cervical cancer who was monogamous but got HPV from her husband who was not. Being one flesh can be good and bad.

3 Likes
14

Ben I don’t know your age so I hope I’m addressing your actual issues but my life experience may be instructive. My wife and I have been married 43 years after meeting at 30 and 40 (not setting any records, I know) but we were both married once before. In each case our mates left us but our lack of experience and helpful cultural norms contributed. My wife had been married for 14 years to a man with anger issues who was emotionally and verbally abusive. I was married for 3 years to a woman who was willing to try out my idea of open marriage which was a seemingly new thing at the time. As a result I learned it wasn’t for me because my reasoning couldn’t over rule my emotional response.

So when I met my new wife to be we were both motivated to make sure of what we were getting into so we decided to live together. She said she thought a year should be enough time to decide if we wanted to marry. We both conceived of it as binding (even though we were neither one religious) and needed to be sure. We even did couples therapy preemptively. Not deliberately but as it turned out we were married exactly a year to the day we met. No regrets although, fair warning: a ten year difference in age sure shows up more at 70 and 80.

3 Likes
15

The problem isn’t that one has struck a nerve, but to perpetuate nonsense which is not only nonsense, but is used to coerce and control women.

This isn’t the place for the discussion of the details, but accurate, up-to-date, robust sex ed information is all over the internet.

3 Likes
16

There’s no science of marriage as such, so I wouldn’t worry about that. What other species do is no indication of what humans should do. Science is a description of how nature operates. Science is not a prescription for what humans should do.

As a general rule, it is a good idea to get advice from people you trust and look up to. For some, this includes church leaders and church tradition. A strong relationship is based on communication, mutual respect, and shared expectations. With those in mind, find the solution that best fits your relationship and beliefs. If that includes waiting until you are married then that is the best solution. If it includes a ceremony and protections that comes from a government recognized marriage, then include that too.

1 Like
17

Science is of very limited application to the ethics and social construction of marriage. The considerations for cohabitation involve matters far removed from studying Bonobos or hormone levels or some such thing.

2 Likes