Marriage, used cars, and strikeouts

As the coverage of the Royal Wedding continued I heard an English journalist asked if Princess Catherine would fare better in the long run than did Princess Diana, at least in her marriage and the lady journalist answered confidently that she likely would, after all she knows William far better than Diana knew Charles and they had even lived together. I don’t know if the terms “live together” have the same connotation in England as here, but if so I have bad news for our English reporter:

:

·                            The number of unmarried couples living together soared 12-fold from 430,000 in 1960 to 5.4 million in 2005.

·                            More than eight out of ten couples who live together will break up either before the wedding or afterwards in divorce.

·                            About 45 percent of those who begin cohabiting do not marry. Another 5-10 percent continue living together and do not marry.

·                            Couples who do marry after living together are 50% more likely to divorce than those who did not.

·                            Only 12 percent of couples who have begun their relationship with cohabitation end up with a marriage lasting 10 years or more.

·                            A Penn State study reports that even a month’s cohabitation decreases the quality of the couple’s relationship

  (Ray Fowler .org)

I once pointed these facts out to a coworker who believed in the logic of living together, or cohabitating, to “see if it works”; in response she said that this was my opinion and that my opinion was stupid. Now I will admit to having some stupid opinions this isn’t one, even that radical right wing think-tank of Penn State agrees that cohabitating ruins relationships. The question is why. If Hollywood portrays cohabitation as simply one stage of courtship (and Hollywood marriages are what we all should aspire to), and if so large a segment of our population believe it’s the way to go why do these same couples strike out so regularly? I have an opinion; rather it is stupid you decide.

Strike one. The type of man who cohabitates: this type of man wants the use of a woman but not the commitment of marriage; he is a renter who wants the liberty to leave without having to pay alimony. A marrying man sees a woman as a treasure to be competed for wooed and respected, the cohabitating man wishes someone to share his bed and the rent, not his life. A marring man cleaves to his wife as one flesh, a cohabitating man keeps one foot in the door at all times. The argument that the cohabitating man makes is simple, you wouldn’t buy a car without test driving it would you? Interestingly a man doesn’t usually test drive just one car and when that car gets a few miles on it, or when it needs more work than he’s willing to give what does he do? Trades it in on a newer model. Does this sound like a winner to you, ladies?

Strike two the type of woman who cohabitates. The old adage women give sex to get love so men feign love to get sex is too often true. The type of lady presupposed to allowing her self to be used without getting a meaningful commitment back is a weak woman. She cannot see that she is a treasure, a rare mysterious treasure rarer and more unique than gold or silver because in the entire universe and in the whole of time God made only one of her, there will never be another. Any man who wants to possess that treasure must pay the highest of all costs, his life.   Ought not the husband to lay down his life for her as Christ did the church? Should not the wife be wholly committed to her husband as the church is to Christ? The woman who casts her pearls before the swine either disrespects herself or her man or most likely both. Guys, hold out for a woman who sees herself as more than an object to be test driven.

Strike three natural law.  Cohabitation is symptomatic of the first two points but in the third it is causative. Natural law is the concept that God places in man, an instinctive knowledge of right and wrong, this is referred to in Romans1:18-20: 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Natural law or moral absolutes are as essential to society as marriage any time we rebel against these standards our plans will not succeed, our nation and especially our children suffer as a result of rebellion and the arrogance of our belief that we know better than God. When mankind was cast out of Eden he was allowed to keep only one thing from paradise, marriage. Marriage is sacred and it must be treated as sacred in order to thrive. Just as God is a jealous god we must be jealous of our marriage. We make that commitment for richer for poorer, for better for worse, in sickness and in health, then and only then do we reap the rewards and face the challenges of life together.

Can a marriage survive cohabitation? Sometimes, just like a batter in baseball can sometimes be safe after a strikeout (if the catcher drops the ball and fails to either tag the batter or throw to first base before the batter reaches it) but when it comes to the rest of your life, I doubt that’s how you want to try to get on base.  Yet that is exactly what cohabitating does.

Until next time keep in the firing line.

p.s. next time I shall endeavor to do the impossible! Have a rational conversation about George Bush!