Posted on 10/09/2007 3:56:14 PM PDT by wagglebee
I would support a landlord's right to evict such a couple.
Widespread social stigma should be restored to such behavior, as such a stigma is one of the bulwarks of marriage and family.
Yet, it was AquinasFan who stated that cohabitation was wrong because at the very least it created a public scandal.
I strongly suggest you look up the definition for words like "slander" and "slanderous" before you use them.
If you had said that I meant my post to be inflammatory, then I would agree with you. It was meant to be inflammatory and I'm not ashamed of it any more than if I made an inflammatory statement about any other non-conservative group. After all, Free Republic is a CONSERVATIVE website, it IS NOT a libertarian website (the fact that libertarians agree with conservatives on taxes and fire arms notwithstanding).
Aquinasfan said that public scandal was ONE reason not to engage in it. That in no way implied that the absense of scandal would make it morally acceptable.
Literally, yes. Practically, no. Chaste cohabitors represent .001% of the cohabiting population (my statistics). IOW, they're statistically insignificant.
But cohabitation is a public scandal. And that's reason enough not to engage in it.
3) Does it still count if it’s a relatively short period of time (day before marraige, one week after engagement)?
Yes, because cohabitation is a public scandal. One doesn't have to be a Christian to understand the importance of bad example.
Sigh, too subtle for you, huh?
Read it again, slowly this time.
I used to think that self-described conservatives agreed on a host of issues, but the more I hang out at FreeRepublic the more I find that we are lucky to agree on even one.
How can there be a "conservative movement" if there is no unifying set of conservative principles or ideals?
I was hoping that we could all at least agree that cohabitation was a bad idea, even if we differed as to why it was a bad idea, e.g. morally wrong, public scandal, bad for the children, statistically problematic.
Even those people who are for lower taxes, smaller government, making abortions illegal, etc. may have cohabited in the past. But I was hoping that they would say to themselves: "Well that was a bad idea, and I won't do that again." even if everything worked out for the good.
I've done lots of things I am not proud of, but I am not willing to somehow shoehorn them into my conservative beliefs in order to justify them and be able to go on saying that I am a conservative.
It would be interesting for someone to reference the words of Edmund Burke or William F. Buckley or Russell Kirk or any other major conservative figure in favor of cohabitation. I don't think its possible.
No, its merely a reflection of the fact that couples that are willing to exert this level of discipline are the type that are predisposed to put the work into a marriage. Virtuous behavior before a marriage is a characteristic of those that are likely to succeed at marriage, not a cause of the successful marriage.
Put another way, compelling a loser to put on a suit and tie and get to the interview early does not mean that he's going to put in eight hours a day, forty a week, after he gets the job.
Dang it! I’m an idiot.
Nothing has been said in favor of compelling people to not cohabitate.
All that is being advocated is that people should be allowed to openly disdain cohabitation.
And people who choose to cohabitate should have enough spine to take a little criticism.
Also, those that choose to cohabitate should reflect as to whether or not they are truly conservative.
If the most basic social arrangement one is involved in is one that all subgroups of conservatives inveigh against, then one must reconsider one's basic assumptions.
There is much to be said for liberalism: it is more warm and fuzzy, it has a long history backed by well-respected intellectuals, some liberal chicks are hot, etc.
My brother shacked up with his fiancee before they got married and they are now divorced and both very bitter about it.
I realize this is just one data point, however, knowing the particular situation the fact that their cohabitation was almost all her idea was a sign of things to come.
I believe that is the point that most of us anti-cohabitationists are trying to make: the relatively small amount of money and hassle that one saves by cohabiting during one's engagement is more than offset by the moral/social/statistical perils.
That's obviously not true. Therefore, taking a group of people that are already likely to succeed at marriage and saying that a particular behavior they display is what makes the difference is missing the point of why they display that behavior in the first place.
And people who choose to cohabitate should have enough spine to take a little criticism.
I'm not saying don't criticize people if that's your thing. I'm saying don't try to argue things like "People that buy running shoes are 10 times less likely to die of a heart attack than those that don't."
Horse hockey.
So yes if the sociologists are correct then it is the cohabitors prior beliefs, attitudes and habits rather than the cohabitation itself that leads to a greater incidence of divorce down the road when they get married.
My point throughout this thread has not been to try and put forth a coherent argument against cohabitation, and I'm not at all motivated to criticize people just to get my jollies.
I was just making the point that it would seem that all self-described conservatives should at least all agree that cohabitation is a bad idea.
And so I believe that my position stands because I am not talking about the practice of cohabitation but the attitudes and beliefs of those who have no problem entering into cohabitative relationships: the sort of people who think cohabitation is OK are not the sort of people who call themselves conservative.
This site is called FreeRepublic. The "Republic" part is just as important as the "Free" part. Freedom for freedom's sake is pure nonsense. Conservative libertarians who want the government to interfere as little as possible in their lives, while simultaneously allowing themselves to be guided by the great truths and traditions of Western Civilization should have no problem hanging out here and enjoying the debates and discussions.
But those libertarians who believe that noone should be able to tell them what to do ... no how ... no ways ... are just doomed to constant silly sophomorish argumentation with the vast majority of Freepers.
Last I knew, your 1st Amendment rights absolutely guaranteed you your rights to display all the disdain towards cohabitation your little heart desires. Or are you contending that someone or something is not allowing you to openly disdain cohabitation?
The facts seem to dispute your erroneous assertion. In this thread alone no less that 5 FReepers have declared that they themselves cohabitated, and many said they had no problem with it. Who are you to say that they are not the sort of people call themselves conservatives?
Clean the inside of the cup not just the outside.
And no I am not trying to be the "conservative cop" defining exactly who is and who isn't conservative.
But if the notion of conservative is so vague that people who believe cohabiting is good and people who believe cohabiting is bad can both call themselves conservative, then the term has no useful meaning any more.
And yes I know that I have a constitutional right to state the well-known fact that cohabitation is a bad thing. But there seems to be a certain spineless whininess among libertarians that if people actually assert their right to disdain an activity that it will eventually result in laws being enacted against such activity.
The cat is out of the bag on cohabitation. Silly people can choose this option and those silly people can claim that they are true blue conservatives. Silly people in the Catholic Church call themselves Catholics even though they support abortion and gay marriage. Silly people who call themselves Mormon support plural marriage. The list goes on and on.
The thing that we have to worry about is not a general disdain being enacted into a prohibition, but quiet in the face of absurdity metastasizing into a validation.
How conservative is it for states to subsidize health care for non-commital couples by letting them share a health plan that is otherwise only available to married couples?
Says you. I submit that I do not recognize your authority to declare any of the aforementioned FReepers being delusional.
And no I am not trying to be the "conservative cop" defining exactly who is and who isn't conservative
Perhaps you genuinely don't recognize it, but you are indeed doing just that. When you proclaim on your own authority that those who don't agree with you on this particular issue are deluding themselves that they are conservatives, you are indeed playing conservative cop.
How conservative is it for states to subsidize health care for non-commital couples by letting them share a health plan that is otherwise only available to married couples?
Are you speaking of government employees? If not, last time I checked it was up to the employer to decide who could be included on a health care plan. I oppose actions by the state to compel an employer to provide such benefits or to prohibit them. How much your employer contributes to your health care and who else it will allow on the plan should be the decision of the employer without any interference from government whatsoever. Capitalism is a wonderful conservative concept. I wish it were practiced more.
How can dare associate with such "stupid people"?
No. It doesn't bother me at all. It doesn't mean I won't challenge it, but I won't lose a wink of sleep over it.
How can dare associate with such "stupid people"?
My parents were FDR loving liberals who didn't speak to me for months after learning that I voted for Reagan. I became accustomed to people being wrong at an early age.
For the record. I don't necessarily think that living together is a good idea. I just recognize it for what it is and don't exagerate the dangers or downplay the safety of not cohabitating.
For what's it's worth, I had a brief but horrible marriage in my early 20's that ended with her running off with a coworker. We moved in together on our honeymoon, and in barely 18 months she was gone.
In fairness to her, I don't blame her for not being an adult. She ran off for juvenile thrills, and I assume that she grew up at some point, and I hope she settled down with someone.
On the other hand, rather than sign a new lease, I moved in with my now wife of 17 years 4 months before our wedding date. God willing that we both survive, I fully expect 17 more years and 17 on top of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.