Misunderstanding Cohabitation

No one has to cohabitate before a legal marriage in order to be in the right, for there is nothing sinful about not doing this either out of a lack of interest or out of concerns for how oneself as an individual might handle it.  There is nothing sinful about it, but there is also nothing obligatory about it either (Deuteronomy 4:2).  It is neither condemned directly by Yahweh nor does it logically follow from anything in the Bible that, if the Bible is true, living with a romantic partner before legal marriage must be immoral.  As if sex prior to formal marriage authorized by a government that did not exist when God created human sexuality is what the Bible condemns, as opposed to casual, noncommittal sex (Exodus 22:16-17), most objections to cohabitation not only treat premarital sex (in the legal sense) as if it is Biblically evil, but also as if cohabitation will lead to sexual activities of any kind.

All of this is of course nonsense.  It does not follow, is outright false, or does not reflect Biblical doctrines whether or not Christianity is true.  It does not follow from drinking alcohol that one will become drunk.  It does not follow from driving a car that there will be a reckless accident.  Likewise, regardless of premarital sex being immoral or permissible, it does not follow from living with someone of the opposite gender inside or outside of a romantic relationship that the two will have sex.  People can have self-control or simply not desire to do such a thing even in a romantic partnership.  Still, it is not premarital sex that is sinful on the Christian worldview.  Having promiscuous, casual sex with no regard for the other party's full personhood and moral rights (Genesis 1:26-27) is condemned.  The consequence for casual sex is to marry the person one has slept with unless it would be a terrible idea (Exodus 22:16-17).

Having sex with someone to whom one is engaged or genuinely is committed to for life unless they qualify for divorce (the requirements being described in Exodus 21:10-11, Matthew 19:9, and 1 Corinthians 7:12-16)--with commitment only being ultimately legitimate when it involves two rationalistic, moralistic partners (anyone else is basing their relationship on assumptions or meaningless whims, all of which are irrelevant to what is true)--is not sinful.  If a man and woman are living together and are not pressuring each other to have sex, do not objectify each other, and sincerely are committed to each other in a romantic or sexual sense on the basis of actual familiarity with the other's valid worldview and personality, then they do nothing wrong by having sex.

Aside from this, there would still be nothing sinful about a couple enjoying lesser sexual acts together.  There is nothing to add to God's commands (Deuteronomy 4:2), for only his nature could metaphysically ground moral obligation, and feelings and traditions are epistemologically irrelevant to discovering what is true or likely about morality.  Christians are pathetic to the extent that they hold to these pathetic things.  There is blatant Biblical freedom to engage in sexual activities short of intercourse, even outside of mutual commitment, as long as it is consensual, heterosexual, not adulterous or incestuous, or other such things.  While acts like rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22), homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13), and the like are actually contrary to Yahweh's moral nature, noy only is premarital sex itself not always sinful, but deeds like mutual masturbation, oral sex, and more are not condemned even in a less committed context.

To live with a romantic partner, perhaps with the intent of discovering what it is like to cohabitate before legal marriage, is not to engage in any of these things.  Nevertheless, they are not sinful, and for the couple that is living together out of rationalistic, genuine commitment, there is nothing immoral on the real Christian worldview in having sex beyond just partaking in the likes of oral sex.  Cohabitation even has some potential benefits to be addressed in a later article--benefits for those who are not irrationalistic fools as most people are, of course.  It still does not need to be morally permissible or situationally beneficial or harmful to be misunderstood, as the legalists claiming to be righteous Christians almost inevitably will choose to make assumptions to fit their emotionalism, traditions, and thorough philosophical ineptitude.