CoHabitation is morally wrong , destructive , and should be outlawed

[TheyCallMeDave]

I will take the position that CoHabitation is detrimental to the Players and to the Nation at large and has/is wreaking much societal decay . I will NOT use the Bible as veracity , even though it is it is absolutely correct on matters of sexual immorality . Looking for a staunch Humanist who thinks he/she can defend CoHabitation and present why it is a valid permissible lifestyle ; You will go first in the debate .

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm willing to answer this, but we need to work out the parameters, and I will not go first. You are arguing against the practice, and it really isn't fair to ask people to take a defensive position without knowing what they are defending against.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

I'm willing to answer this, but we need to work out the parameters, and I will not go first. You are arguing against the practice, and it really isn't fair to ask people to take a defensive position without knowing what they are defending against.

You advertise yourself to be a Lutheran which is a Christian denomination ; are you someone who claims to be a Christian yet believes Living Together is morally acceptable ? Or., would your position in this debate be one of just playing the 'devils advocate' ? Please explain. If the latter, then im not interested. Further, the person taking the affirmative position on the subject historically and typically goes first and that is one of the stipulations that I will hold to without compromise ; if you feel you have a strong case in defense of CoHabitation , then it is encumbant up yourself to present it to get the debate started otherwise Ill wait for someone who can. Thank you. As far as the debate parameters, Ive always used the Forums standard protocol which is 6 exchanges each including rebuttal / up to 2500 words per post / up to 7 calendar days to respond.....and in this specific debate the Bible itself will not be used for scriptural support.

 

[Arcangl86]

You advertise yourself to be a Lutheran which is a Christian denomination ; are you someone who claims to be a Christian yet believes Living Together is morally acceptable ? Or., would your position in this debate be one of just playing the 'devils advocate' ? Please explain. If the latter, then im not interested. Further, the person taking the affirmative position on the subject historically and typically goes first and that is one of the stipulations that I will hold to without compromise ; if you feel you have a strong case in defense of CoHabitation , then it is encumbant up yourself to present it to get the debate started otherwise Ill wait for someone who can. Thank you. As far as the debate parameters, Ive always used the Forums standard protocol which is 6 exchanges each including rebuttal / up to 2500 words per post / up to 7 calendar days to respond.....and in this specific debate the Bible itself will not be used for scriptural support.

I don't believe living together is acceptable from a Christian viewpoint, but you are making a secular argument, and there I disagree with you. But I'm not interested anymore. You are actually taking the affirmative. not me, but you insist I start first. Your argument is that it is morally wrong, destructive, and should be outlawed. That's an affirmative statement. I would be arguing against that, so by the logic you gave, you should go first. But since you won't budge, I'm no longer interested.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hey Dave,

You know I'm not a humanist...but I don't see the problem with debating you on this.

I don't really see why I'd start though...I don't know your argument against it so I'm not really able to do anything but define cohabitation. If it's simply a matter of getting the last word in, I'd have no problem letting you start and end...giving you one extra post.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

I don't believe living together is acceptable from a Christian viewpoint, but you are making a secular argument, and there I disagree with you. But I'm not interested anymore. You are actually taking the affirmative. not me, but you insist I start first. Your argument is that it is morally wrong, destructive, and should be outlawed. That's an affirmative statement. I would be arguing against that, so by the logic you gave, you should go first. But since you won't budge, I'm no longer interested.

Im making an absolute statement regardless of whether its a Christian or secular lifestyle philosophy ; there is only ONE truth about the matter and not a multiple/relative 'truth' based on the label One gives themselves . I am taking the dissending view on the issue and not the affirmative (pro view) , therefore, Ill require that the affirmative view be stated which might list a conspectus on why it is good, beneficial, and permissible in society to start the debate ; whatever statements I make the Opponent will have ample time to rebut during the course of the debate . I accept that you no longer are interested however.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

I'm just curious. Where are the facts here? Do you have statistics to support your argument or do you just feel it is wrong?

The facts and stats get presented IN the debate , not beforehand. And no, I don't 'just feel it is wrong' --- it is morally and ethically wrong based on the facts and repercussions to the Individuals and to the Nation from living/have lived the lifestyle .

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

What do you consider cohabitation? What are the facts and repercussions to the nation and individuals? At what point should it be considered illegal? Have you considered the effect that legislation outlawing what you consider cohabitation would have on personal freedom and liberty?

Im speaking of the common lifestyle of living together , unmarried, having sex ; that is my definition of todays popular CoHabitation. As for your last two questions....they can be discussed in the debate , not in this proposal venue. Dave.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

LOL, ok. No, because there is just as much of an argument for outlawing a Christian lifestyle as there is for outlawing cohabitation if you remove personal freedoms and individual liberty.

What's more of a problem is the inability of people in our society to respect the life choices of others. There is no debate here because you're entire proposal hinges on infringing on the rights of others.

Sorry bub.

Sorry Bub, but 'rights' should be abolished whenever they harm people and a nation at large due to the proven consequences of immoral living ; for a nation not too shows the moral decay of a nation ; 'a nation that turns from God invites moral rot' is what your Bible says in Proverbs . You've obviously bought into the culture and whatever comes down the pike -- true Born Again Christians no longer fall for the ploy. End.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

You haven't presented an argument, merely a proposition. The argument for the proposition does get stated up front along with the proposition.

I would argue, secularly, than in a society in which no-fault divorce is already legal and division of childcare responsibilities are defined by court whether marriage has occurred or not, co-habitation poses no disadvantages over marriage, but provides some advantages as it lowers the threshold of household creation.

'Do not be conformed to the worlds philosophy anymore but be transformed to the image of Christ ' . 'You cannot be friends with the world and love God at the same time' ..... some scripture which all proclaimed Christians are commanded to follow. Its not optional . Is the Worlds philosophy on living , a friend to you ??? Something to think about. End.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

You said: "I will NOT use the Bible as veracity" Keeping your own word is something you ought to think about.

I said I wouldn't use it in the Debate ; this thread is a Proposal to Debate . Further, you and some Others in here are really derailing this thread ; this thread is to secure a person to formally debate sexual-CoHabitation with and not casual dialogue so I hope you will respect that. If you want to chat about what I think of marriage and other pertinent issues then I encourage you to please start a new thread in the appropriate Room in this Forum, but not in this thread. I hope you will respect this and if you and your Cohort continue ill be forced to enter a report to Administration. Thanks in advance for your compliance . Dave.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

What's your definition of marriage?

See Post #24

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Sadly, the view that cohabitation is destructive to society is the same argument used to discriminate against gay people, against feminists, against racial integration, against abortion. I thank God that I live in a look liberal Western democracy.

You certainly sound more like a Humanist than a Bible Believing Christian ; at one time in my life I too had one foot in the World and one foot with Christ . I hope you can jump completely into CHrists Camp instead of being friends with the World and its anti-God philosophies. Also, see Post #24 .

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Hey Dave,

You know I'm not a humanist...but I don't see the problem with debating you on this.

I don't really see why I'd start though...I don't know your argument against it so I'm not really able to do anything but define cohabitation. If it's simply a matter of getting the last word in, I'd have no problem letting you start and end...giving you one extra post.

Great ! If you need a primer on HOW to kick-start the Debate since you will be representing the affirmative position that sexual-Cohabitation has benefits and poses no problems , then may I suggest you open with WHY sexual-Cohabitation is a neutral, permissible, healthy, optional lifestyle choice (?) .

Also, you advertise yourself as an Atheist but say you are not a Humanist ; Ive not met one professed Atheist who wasn't a Humanist in their beliefs and lifestyle . If you ascribe to the current American Culture and its philosophies, then you are in fact a Humanist which also conforms with the formal Humanist Manifestos 1 and 2 . If you still beg to differ, then Id be interested in hearing otherwise but lets not derail this thread too much and get about the start of the formal Debate just between the two of us. Thanks for being willing to debate and unpack the common lifestyle of sexual-cohabitation in America and around the World today. Dave.

PS -- ATTN MODERATOR ; LOOKS LIKE WE ARE READY TO HAVE A SPECIFIC ROOM SET UP FOR THE DEBATE . PLEASE DO SO. PARAMETERS ARE : 7 DAYS TO POST , UP TO 2500 WORDS PER POST, 3 TOTAL POSTS EACH WITH MY DEBATE PARTNER GOING FIRST, AND NO SCRIPTURES USED FROM THE BIBLE. THANKS.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

What this boils down to is this:

Just like the Muslim terrorists, your proposing the institution of religious law. I cannot support that nor is it a cause worthy of further discussion.

If you had carefully read my posts in this thread, you would have seen that the Formal Debate will NOT consist of religious law or Bible references , therefore, you err in your assertion. Further, no one is asking you to continue in the discussion which has only served to derail what this thread is all about : To secure a formal debate Partner . See Post #24 (if you happen to return here)

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

It doesn't help. You say sexual-Cohabitation is what you want to discuss. I believe you said in another post that means without being married, which means you need to give a definition of what your definition of marriage is. Do you define it has having a marriage license from a government, or what? It does make a difference considering you want to arrest people for what you see as co-habitation.
imo, If you cannot discuss it as a lawmaker would discuss such things, with defined parameters, you don't need to be writing laws or even suggesting laws that will effect other citizens.

Im not going to give you the satisfaction of Me defining sexual-unmarried-cohabitation in this thread, because ill do so in the Formal Debate in a very concise thorough manner . Go back and re-read Post #24 about the reporting part. Thanks.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

You must have missed where I said this is not worthy of debate. You will not find a partner.

I have ! See Post #27 . Now please stop derailing this Proposal to Debate thread .

 

[Ana the Ist]

Great ! If you need a primer on HOW to kick-start the Debate since you will be representing the affirmative position that sexual-Cohabitation has benefits and poses no problems , then may I suggest you open with WHY sexual-Cohabitation is a neutral, permissible, healthy, optional lifestyle choice (?) .

Also, you advertise yourself as an Atheist but say you are not a Humanist ; Ive not met one professed Atheist who wasn't a Humanist in their beliefs and lifestyle . If you ascribe to the current American Culture and its philosophies, then you are in fact a Humanist which also conforms with the formal Humanist Manifestos 1 and 2 . If you still beg to differ, then Id be interested in hearing otherwise but lets not derail this thread too much and get about the start of the formal Debate just between the two of us. Thanks for being willing to debate and unpack the common lifestyle of sexual-cohabitation in America and around the World today. Dave.

PS -- ATTN MODERATOR ; LOOKS LIKE WE ARE READY TO HAVE A SPECIFIC ROOM SET UP FOR THE DEBATE . PLEASE DO SO. PARAMETERS ARE : 7 DAYS TO POST , UP TO 2500 WORDS PER POST, 3 TOTAL POSTS EACH WITH MY DEBATE PARTNER GOING FIRST, AND NO SCRIPTURES USED FROM THE BIBLE. THANKS.

I'm ready when you are Dave. We'll define Cohabitation as you have earlier in this thread. Two people living as a married couple (although not married). No scripture references.

Am I still going first?

I understand that you want to debate a humanist, which I am not, so keep in mind ...I won't be defending humanism. If you wanted to debate humanism, perhaps that could be a separate debate...but again, I won't defend it. I'm keeping the topic to cohabitation.

Just let me know if I'm going first.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Dave,

I decided I'm fine with going first. We can start whenever.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

I already went first in my post #16, which he responded to with scripture references, breaking his own rule.

You silly Goose....you and I aren't having the formal Debate ! Where did you get the idea from that you were my Debate Partner ?? This thread is only a proposal TO debate. And ive already secured a Debate Partner called Ana . Further, I said I wanted to debate a Humanist (atheist) and not a professing advertised Christian which your addy exemplifies.