Well as for the cohabitation studies, there's lots of social science controversy over those (lots of correlation/causation problems). And more recent studies that make finer distinctions actually find just the opposite that the studies from the 70s and 80s found:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-28-cohabitation-research_N.htm
Teachman's analysis of federal data on 6,577 women whose first marriages occurred between 1970 and 1995 found that a woman who has lived only with her future spouse has no greater risk of divorce. But for women who lived with someone else in addition to the eventual husband, there is a greater risk of divorce, found the study, published in 2003.
Those aren't the only studies reflecting changes researchers across the country, including at the University of Wisconsin, the University of Minnesota, Pennsylvania State University, Cornell University and others, are studying cohabiting couples. Among other recent findings:
The odds of divorce among women who married their only cohabiting partner were 28% lower than among women who never cohabited before marriage, according to sociologist Daniel Lichter of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.
Divorce rates for those who cohabit more than once are more than twice as high as for women who cohabited only with their eventual husbands, says Lichter's study, to be published in the Journal of Marriage and Family in December.
Cohabiting between a first and second marriage doesn't raise the risk of divorce unless the woman brings a child into the marriage from a previous relationship. A man with a child from a previous relationship does not raise the likelihood of a second divorce, finds a study in the May Journal of Marriage and Family, in which Teachman analyzed findings on 655 women from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.
Other recent studies have shown that certain subgroups don't appear to experience negative effects from cohabiting, such as engaged couples who move in together or those who have already decided to marry in the future.
Some new research goes further, suggesting that living together may reduce risk of divorce.
Of course, since most couples who live together are sexually involved, none of these studies are likely to be relevant to your situation. I doubt there has been much research done on how living together but not having sex before marriage affects the later relationship.
Anyway, as for not having sex before marriage, I'm sure it is possible to live in the same house with your SO and not have sex. I'm guessing it makes things harder though. I don't think advice is really going to help you on that issue; it really depends on what you two think you can handle and how bad you two think it would be if you did end up having sex.
As to what other people will think, who are the people you are worried about? It sounds like your parents won't be upset if you move in together, so is it friends you're worried about? Church members? On the friend issue I would think you must have some other friends in your circle who don't believe in the prohibition on sex before marriage, no? Surely the other friends don't sit in judgment of them? In terms of the church, I'd surprised if anyone actually spent time thinking about your sex life. If this is really a concern I'd say time to find better friends/church who mind their own business!
I think whether or not you are going to live together (but especially if you are), you probably should have a serious talk together about what you're planning for the future and what kind of time-line you have in mind. As other posters have made clear, there are different ways to approach living together. It sounds like since you own the house and everything is in your name, that you two would keep "yours" and "mine" separate.
When GF and I moved in together we started out that way and it worked fine for us. We were moving in together because 1) we wanted to be together all the time and we were already spending every night together, but this meant traveling between our houses and neglecting her cat half of the time and 2) it made no sense to pay for two apartments and only use each half of the time. At that point, we were not making any "forever" type of commitment to each other and we didn't feel comfortable joining our finances. By about a year later, we had gotten to that point and we decided to combine things then and we were able to do that with no problem. By that point we also decided that we eventually needed the legal rights that go along with marriage. Of course we're not allowed to have those rights where we live, so we're just hoping to be able to move somewhere where we will be able to get married in the future. For us though, marriage is just a legal relationship. It has nothing to do with how committed we are and it was never the goal we had when we moved in together. (And we have no idea when/if we will actually be able to get married and have it legally recognized where we are living.)
Your situation is obviously pretty different than ours. Marriage is the goal for you and him. If this is something you want now and he wants later, it'd probably be a good idea to talk about how long you're willing to wait and how long he might want to wait. (And what if he doesn't achieve financial stability very easily? Will he want to wait say, 2, 3, 5 years to get engaged depending upon how the finances go? Are you willing to wait that long?) Also, if it's possible that you will end up living together for a significant length of time, there may eventually come a time when you'll want to combine finances. Is that something either of you might want to do before you are married? How will the fact that you own the house affect this?
What happened if it spilled on something important? 
Leave the coffee in the kitchen (but pop in to say hello by all means!) 
yes it's nice not having children so you can do this and sometimes we do have the coffee in the shower but mostly its waiting there and yes I agree wine is the best
