Title: Unmarried Co-Habitation is Morally Wrong , Destructive , and Should Be Outlawed

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Stipulations:

1. Ana the Ist will be opposing this; TheyCallMeDave will be afirming that Unmarried Co-Habitiaton is wrong. Ana the Ist will be making the opening post.
2. There will be three rounds with the posts alturnating; Ana the Ist will be making the opening post.
3. Post length will be unlimited.
4. Maximum time between posts will be one week.
5. Biblical quotes will not be allowed in this debate
6. All the normal rules of CF remain in effect.

For those not directly participating a Peanut Gallery thread has been created in Ethics & Morality
and can be found here:
Formal Debate Peanut Gallery thread - Unmarried Co-Habitation is Morally Wrong ...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Freedom. Free will. Choice. It is the ability to reason and choose which, in part, defines the human experience. On one end of the spectrum, we see man removed from society, choosing as he will, and dealing with all the consequences therein. On the other end, the slave, left with but two choices...obey or suffer. The vast majority of us willingly trade away some choices to enjoy the comforts of society. Most of us are willing to trade away the choices of murdering, stealing, raping etc. to enjoy some measure of protection against them. It is within the laws of society we find balance, which choices we're willing to abandon in favor of security...which choices we're willing to fight for, perhaps die for. Make no mistake though, for each choice traded away we slide closer to slavery.

The choice on discussion today is cohabitation. For the purposes of this discussion it's described as two people, willingly choosing to live together as a married couple (who have not been married in any formal ceremony) and are involved in a sexual relationship. My opponent believes this to be immoral, destructive, and should be a choice no one can make. I disagree.

I don't know what objections he has, but I can probably guess them. He'll try to tell you it leads to the spread of disease, single parents, broken families, domestic violence...maybe more. These are distractions though. The choice to cohabitate isn't the choice to have children, nor is it the choice to cheat on your spouse, nor abuse your spouse or family members in any way. It doesn't necessarily lead to any of those things...nor will my opponent be able to show it does. Two people can decide to live in a committed sexual relationship without starting a family nor abusing each other. What is the harm in that? What is destroyed?

I'm not going to pretend that some choices don't necessarily follow others...some indeed do. For example, the choice to have and raise a child necessitates all sorts of other decisions. What to feed the child, what to teach and where to school the child, how to punish the child. These choices necessarily follow the choice to have and raise a child. These choices don't necessarily follow cohabitation. In fact, the only choice that necessarily follows cohabitation is whether or not to continue cohabitation.

So if outlawed, what is gained? Do we no longer live in a society with single parents? Is domestic abuse removed? Cheating and lying? Do these all disappear if everyone is formally married in the eyes of the law? Clearly not...for all these things and more happen in marriage as well.

So what is gained? Nothing...you merely slide one step closer to slavery.

This concludes my first post.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

@TheyCallMeDave

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

RESPONSE: Thanks to Ana for helping to unpack this very popular Lifestyle and to see where it has brought America . I shall respond to the undergirding philosophy associated with this Lifestyle based on what Ana has offered up, then in my next response I will get into the hard statistics and facts .

Freedom , freewill, and choice were presented in the first paragraph I presume , as a means to justify this LIfestyle as being totally permissible ; but just because we have these things available to us doesn't mean we need to pursue Lifestyles that are inherently immoral, unethical, and pose harm to people . Surely the Founders of our (once) great Country didn't establish freedom laws and the Bill of Rights so we could act any ol way we desired ---- these laws and rights were given assuming and trusting that its People had the responsibility and desire to live above reproach and not according to their own whimsical desires as promoted by an out of control Mass Media and other venues. I doubt that Shackin-up at will and sometimes just after a few dates , is what our Founding Fathers had in mind . In fact, our Founding Fathers squarely centered their admonishments on sound biblical principles, mandates, and the law of God so maximized harmony , peace, fulfillment, safety, protection could be experienced by the Masses and NOT the advent of a 'whatever' society dismissing morality, ethics, and common sense in favor of hedonism and dispising THE most vital backbone to any civilized Society..........that being legal and lawful Marriage .

In the second and third paragraphs, Ana touched on some of the reasons which make this Lifestyle Choice a bad one for the Players and Society as a whole ; we will examine what the statistical fallout has been for America when unmarried Cohabitants purposely want to leave the back door ajar (and often exit thru it) . The poor example it leaves with children is only a part of it .

We were then told that Shacking-up doesn't remove the many social ills we face today as a nation , I assume, as a means to bolster the Shack-up concept ; the issue isn't whether this Lifestyle can remove it but whether the LIfestyle is contributing to it. ANd if it is, which it is, then its a Lifestyle that shouldn't be entertained and legal steps need to be set to discourage it. This of course presumes that People and Government place a greater emphasis on living righteously over playing house , degrading the marital institution, and using one another for a time --- which the twisted tolerant and 'whatever' movement today has firmly established.

The final analysis in Anas discourse, was that we 'move closer to slavery' if such Lifestyles are legally banned at the expense of personal 'freedom' ; but more accurately....it is such Lifestyles that place people INTO slavery to their immoral lustful desires and unethical agendas . It is only by living righteously in accordance to the Creators loving protective moral mandates that people find real freedom --- freedom from wrongdoing , freedom from bringing harm to themselves because they want to live in accordance to their own authority instead of handing it over to the Creator of us all whos ways are good, moral, perfect, and designed with protection .

This concludes my rebuttal and my next post will take a look at the devastation caused by this deplorable Lifestyle which so many find fun and appealing .

Perhaps I could ask Ana why he/she decided marriage over unmarried cohabitation ?

Dave

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Words that ring just as true today as they did back when President Eisenhower first spoke them. Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed members of the CF community, don't be disappointed in my opponent's first post. I understand why it might appear lacking to some of you...but make no mistake, it is a brilliant first post. I implore you, read it again...because this is the kind of argument to make when your position lacks any kind of validity. When you have no reasons for anyone to support your position, when the facts are not in your favor, you should do exactly as David has...draw attention away from the big picture by placing a flashy frame around it. Well I'm sorry Dave, good frames won't save bad paintings.

David didn't make any points for me to address, nor did he present any facts for me to refute. What he left me with are a few empty unsupported claims. Normally, I'd point out that all my opponent has done is state a few unsupported claims and dismiss them as such....however, if I did that here this would be an unusually short (and boring) debate. So in the spirit of competition, I'll explain why these empty claims are completely invalid and lacking any merit.

The first claim that I'll address is David's claim that God finds cohabitation morally wrong. God actually approves of cohabitation as we defined it for the purposes of this discussion...but I'll get to that in just a minute. The second claim is possibly the oddest, it's that our Founding Fathers were somehow opposed to cohabitation and would approve of laws to restrict the freedoms of Americans to stop it. I can assure you that this claim is obviously false to anyone who has ever heard of the Declaration of independence. The final, slightly less bizarre claim is that somehow people are more free when they have laws restricting them from cohabitation. I say "less bizarre" because it actually makes sense that someone who finds two people living together as a married couple morally wrong... also thinks that laws which attack personal liberty increase personal freedom.

Let's begin, shall we? David has spent considerable effort trying to confuse our audience as to what cohabitation is. He's used the slang term "shacking up" in place of "cohabitation" in the hopes that you, dear reader, will mistake one for the other. We aren't simply talking about a couple who split the rent on an apartment and have loads of sex. Nope, cohabitation in this debate is described as two people living together as a married couple (though without any formal ceremony or legal recognition) in a sexual relationship. That's it.

Now, you know as well as I do that God doesn't approve of pre marital sex. God sees this as morally wrong...that's not up for dispute. So the question becomes..."What makes a couple married in the eyes of God?" Consider this for a moment reader...is it a ceremony led by a priest? I think not. This would mean that in a place with no priests there would never be any new marriages. Admittedly this is an unlikely scenario, but imagine that tomorrow morning every priest were locked up and unable to marry anyone....would this end marriage in God's eyes? What if all the judges were locked up with the priests....would no one be able to marry?

The answer is rather obvious...of course not. Marriage is about the bond that love creates between a couple. It's this bond, the love it represents, the commitment that solidifies it, and the trust it takes to make that commitment that God cares about. It is this bond that makes matrimony "holy". It's not a document procured by the state, not the wedding ring or any other symbols...these things aren't needed for God to recognize the bond of love that is marriage.

So the good news is that couples who cohabitate aren't on the wrong side of morality. Indeed it's exactly the opposite...God prefers the couple living in a commitment of marriage to the couple who is just "shacking up" and having sex outside the confines of a loving committed marriage. True, the cohabitating couple may not have a "legal" marriage nor is their marriage sanctified by a clergyman...but in the eyes of God it is at least moral.

That brings us to our Founding Fathers. It's entirely possible that they don't view cohabitation as morally acceptable...I don't know. Frankly though, neither does David. Neither of us are time travelers and the founding fathers didn't write about cohabitation to my knowledge...so where they stand on the subject of its morality, none can say.

They did, however, write a little document known as the Declaration of Independence. In it, they wisely mentioned three inalienable "god-given" rights. Say them with me now..."life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Now, dear reader, do you remember who this declaration was addressing? You need not know his name...you need only know he saw himself as the absolute ruler of our founding fathers. He believed he had the right to decide how everyone lived, what freedoms his people had or didn't have, and who lived as his slaves.

You'd have to be blind to not see the point I'm making. We may not know what our founding fathers thought regarding the morality of cohabitation...but we can be sure they opposed the idea of anyone creating laws that would choke the god given right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How much did they oppose any such laws? Well, I feel confident in saying that they would've raised an army and overthrown anyone who tried to implement the kind of laws David is proposing.

Finally, we have David's personal opinion that by creating a law that removes one's ability to cohabitate...somehow that person whose liberty and right to pursue happiness has been deprived of them is in actuality "free from danger, lust, etc."....

Obviously this is false. No law removes danger from life. No law can remove lust from the mind. No...all a law against cohabitation would free a man from is personal responsibility and choice. In that way...it serves only to make us closer to slaves and further from freedom.

This concludes my second post.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Words that ring just as true today as they did back when President Eisenhower first spoke them. Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed members of the CF community, don't be disappointed in my opponent's first post. I understand why it might appear lacking to some of you...but make no mistake, it is a brilliant first post. I implore you, read it again...because this is the kind of argument to make when your position lacks any kind of validity. When you have no reasons for anyone to support your position, when the facts are not in your favor, you should do exactly as David has...draw attention away from the big picture by placing a flashy frame around it. Well I'm sorry Dave, good frames won't save bad paintings.

David didn't make any points for me to address, nor did he present any facts for me to refute. What he left me with are a few empty unsupported claims. Normally, I'd point out that all my opponent has done is state a few unsupported claims and dismiss them as such....however, if I did that here this would be an unusually short (and boring) debate. So in the spirit of competition, I'll explain why these empty claims are completely invalid and lacking any merit.

The first claim that I'll address is David's claim that God finds cohabitation morally wrong. God actually approves of cohabitation as we defined it for the purposes of this discussion...but I'll get to that in just a minute. The second claim is possibly the oddest, it's that our Founding Fathers were somehow opposed to cohabitation and would approve of laws to restrict the freedoms of Americans to stop it. I can assure you that this claim is obviously false to anyone who has ever heard of the Declaration of independence. The final, slightly less bizarre claim is that somehow people are more free when they have laws restricting them from cohabitation. I say "less bizarre" because it actually makes sense that someone who finds two people living together as a married couple morally wrong... also thinks that laws which attack personal liberty increase personal freedom.

Let's begin, shall we? David has spent considerable effort trying to confuse our audience as to what cohabitation is. He's used the slang term "shacking up" in place of "cohabitation" in the hopes that you, dear reader, will mistake one for the other. We aren't simply talking about a couple who split the rent on an apartment and have loads of sex. Nope, cohabitation in this debate is described as two people living together as a married couple (though without any formal ceremony or legal recognition) in a sexual relationship. That's it.

Now, you know as well as I do that God doesn't approve of pre marital sex. God sees this as morally wrong...that's not up for dispute. So the question becomes..."What makes a couple married in the eyes of God?" Consider this for a moment reader...is it a ceremony led by a priest? I think not. This would mean that in a place with no priests there would never be any new marriages. Admittedly this is an unlikely scenario, but imagine that tomorrow morning every priest were locked up and unable to marry anyone....would this end marriage in God's eyes? What if all the judges were locked up with the priests....would no one be able to marry?

The answer is rather obvious...of course not. Marriage is about the bond that love creates between a couple. It's this bond, the love it represents, the commitment that solidifies it, and the trust it takes to make that commitment that God cares about. It is this bond that makes matrimony "holy". It's not a document procured by the state, not the wedding ring or any other symbols...these things aren't needed for God to recognize the bond of love that is marriage.

So the good news is that couples who cohabitate aren't on the wrong side of morality. Indeed it's exactly the opposite...God prefers the couple living in a commitment of marriage to the couple who is just "shacking up" and having sex outside the confines of a loving committed marriage. True, the cohabitating couple may not have a "legal" marriage nor is their marriage sanctified by a clergyman...but in the eyes of God it is at least moral.

That brings us to our Founding Fathers. It's entirely possible that they don't view cohabitation as morally acceptable...I don't know. Frankly though, neither does David. Neither of us are time travelers and the founding fathers didn't write about cohabitation to my knowledge...so where they stand on the subject of its morality, none can say.

They did, however, write a little document known as the Declaration of Independence. In it, they wisely mentioned three inalienable "god-given" rights. Say them with me now..."life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Now, dear reader, do you remember who this declaration was addressing? You need not know his name...you need only know he saw himself as the absolute ruler of our founding fathers. He believed he had the right to decide how everyone lived, what freedoms his people had or didn't have, and who lived as his slaves.

You'd have to be blind to not see the point I'm making. We may not know what our founding fathers thought regarding the morality of cohabitation...but we can be sure they opposed the idea of anyone creating laws that would choke the god given right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How much did they oppose any such laws? Well, I feel confident in saying that they would've raised an army and overthrown anyone who tried to implement the kind of laws David is proposing.

Finally, we have David's personal opinion that by creating a law that removes one's ability to cohabitate...somehow that person whose liberty and right to pursue happiness has been deprived of them is in actuality "free from danger, lust, etc."....

Obviously this is false. No law removes danger from life. No law can remove lust from the mind. No...all a law against cohabitation would free a man from is personal responsibility and choice. In that way...it serves only to make us closer to slaves and further from freedom.

This concludes my second post.

REPLY:



Ana, First I want to thank you for the accolaides. Much appreciated.

Before I get into the scientific studies showing unmarried with sex cohabitation is detrimental to the Players and now an entire Nation at large, ill address a few of your points from your last post . Your responsibility taking the affirmative proactive stand of defending the Title of the Debate has gone unanswered by yourself ; I gave you a brief tutor while still in the proposal-debate stage as to what you would have to show, namely, why you believe this subject lIfestyle IS good, permissible, not immoral, and according to what high standard --- instead you have demonstrated a derailment appealing to the 'whatever' present philosophy for doing life called 'non slavery' thru jettisoning morals, along with appealing to unsubstantiated personal feelings. Additionally, you didn't answer my only question posed to you which was : Why did you and your Spouse choose lifelong legally commited MARRIAGE instead of a shack up arrangement since you are a Supporter of it ? I hope you will answer this in detail this time around being your final contribution to the debate.



The term I use of 'Shacking up' is a distinctive term used to differentiate two people living in the same house without sexual intimacy such as a large house with rental spaces , as well as legal marriage , and specifically addresses the lifestyle today to deliberately skirt around all matters of legalities , all matters of lifelong commitment , a non compliance (or little thereof) to work out troubles which commited marriage partners do because they are bound , and a try-out-the-cow mentality before buying it IFFFF that is even in the mind of the male to begin with. Men who acquire weak-willed women to enter into this loose living arrangement are women who are shallow in their security , will compromise morals and their better judgment just to have a Male around in hopes if he likes it then he'll put a ring on it to quote a pop song today. She has to dupe herself into believing that the Male wont take up what popular Singer/Songwriter Paul Simon wrote about thusly : ' Just slip out the back Jack, no need to be coy Roy, make some new plans Stan ......... just set yourself free ' So, the term Shacking up while not being politically correct, is in fact the scope of the Lifestyle. Furthermore, if it does end up in marriage, the statistics prove that there is considerable higher divorce rate versus not shacking up prior ; this is due to the lack of commitment which is intrinsic to people who demote their character to shack with another willing person.



Liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, was never meant to include immorality, unethical endeavors , doing whatever you feel like , etc.... it was framed with the automatic assumption that Americans would appeal to a higher power than themselves for living correctly and treating others with respect. Shacking up is the greatest disrespect a man can show a woman because she is seen as a person good for illicit sex, getting his laundry done, having meals to come to instead of being willing to die for her if need be which committed marriage encapsulates. The security the shack up Honey desires is shaky ground because at a moments notice the guy can slip out the back leaving the woman devastated either financially and or emotionally and oftentime with young children in the wake. Not even our Court of Law recognizes shacking up as anything legal -- in fact nearly every Judge takes the attitude of 'you made your bed now you have to sleep in it' . Watch any of the TV Court Shows and this is confirmed as well as in Courts across the Land.



Part 2 forthcoming...................

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

REPLY:



Ana, First I want to thank you for the accolaides. Much appreciated.

Before I get into the scientific studies showing unmarried with sex cohabitation is detrimental to the Players and now an entire Nation at large, ill address a few of your points from your last post . Your responsibility taking the affirmative proactive stand of defending the Title of the Debate has gone unanswered by yourself ; I gave you a brief tutor while still in the proposal-debate stage as to what you would have to show, namely, why you believe this subject lIfestyle IS good, permissible, not immoral, and according to what high standard --- instead you have demonstrated a derailment appealing to the 'whatever' present philosophy for doing life called 'non slavery' thru jettisoning morals, along with appealing to unsubstantiated personal feelings. Additionally, you didn't answer my only question posed to you which was : Why did you and your Spouse choose lifelong legally commited MARRIAGE instead of a shack up arrangement since you are a Supporter of it ? I hope you will answer this in detail this time around being your final contribution to the debate.



The term I use of 'Shacking up' is a distinctive term used to differentiate two people living in the same house without sexual intimacy such as a large house with rental spaces , as well as legal marriage , and specifically addresses the lifestyle today to deliberately skirt around all matters of legalities , all matters of lifelong commitment , a non compliance (or little thereof) to work out troubles which commited marriage partners do because they are bound , and a try-out-the-cow mentality before buying it IFFFF that is even in the mind of the male to begin with. Men who acquire weak-willed women to enter into this loose living arrangement are women who are shallow in their security , will compromise morals and their better judgment just to have a Male around in hopes if he likes it then he'll put a ring on it to quote a pop song today. She has to dupe herself into believing that the Male wont take up what popular Singer/Songwriter Paul Simon wrote about thusly : ' Just slip out the back Jack, no need to be coy Roy, make some new plans Stan ......... just set yourself free ' So, the term Shacking up while not being politically correct, is in fact the scope of the Lifestyle. Furthermore, if it does end up in marriage, the statistics prove that there is considerable higher divorce rate versus not shacking up prior ; this is due to the lack of commitment which is intrinsic to people who demote their character to shack with another willing person.



Liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, was never meant to include immorality, unethical endeavors , doing whatever you feel like , etc.... it was framed with the automatic assumption that Americans would appeal to a higher power than themselves for living correctly and treating others with respect. Shacking up is the greatest disrespect a man can show a woman because she is seen as a person good for illicit sex, getting his laundry done, having meals to come to instead of being willing to die for her if need be which committed marriage encapsulates. The security the shack up Honey desires is shaky ground because at a moments notice the guy can slip out the back leaving the woman devastated either financially and or emotionally and oftentime with young children in the wake. Not even our Court of Law recognizes shacking up as anything legal -- in fact nearly every Judge takes the attitude of 'you made your bed now you have to sleep in it' . Watch any of the TV Court Shows and this is confirmed as well as in Courts across the Land.



Part 2 forthcoming...................

PART 2 :

Onto the evidence showing this lifestyle has and is hurting People and degrading the much needed institution of marriage. While the consequences of shacking up can also be seen in failed marriages, its because that Humans are sinfilled , self centered, and of poor character instead of the marriage concept itself being flawed. Im sure Ana would agree since he/she is married. (What is your gender anyway Ana ..curious ?) . Id like to ask why you didn't opt for Shacking up and avoiding any legalities , ultimate commitment , and have the backdoor ajar in case things got too emotionally rough ? If you have children, will you be raising them with the Whatever-moral relativism viewpoint ? Will you be encouraging them to follow whatever the present culture dictates as far as doing life goes ? And, what about your Parents.....did they discipline you with firm morals and ethics and if so, when did you decide to forego their teachings to embrace a 'whatever' attitude to living ? Thanks for sharing. Since this will be your last post, I trust that you will answer these questions as I don't mean them to be rhetorical . Futher and lastly, how do you reconcile the hypocrisy between wanting a moral relativistic lifestyle for yourself , yet you demand absolute moral laws be applied to you by others such as in a transaction of some kind ? Would you be ok with someone choosing sexual relativism with your teenage girl while out on a date for instance ? What if your Spouse announced their desire to enter into a sexual relativism mindset and take on an extra marital affair .... your 'whatever' attitude would make allowances for that wouldn't it ?

The following is a list of Americas Founding Fathers demonstrating how they feel toward God and The Bible for Government and daily living --- I cant extrapolate permissible Shacking Up from anything they've said. In fact to them, it would have flown in the face of decency and upright living. : http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755 . Be sure and read Thomas Jeffersons quote in the site since he is usually brought up amongst Atheists for having anti-Christian sentiments. Our Founding Fathers would be very very saddened to see how Gods authority has been replaced by Mans irresponsible authority and desire to be his own god.

Next are the scientific studies done on Shacking Up and the harm its come with it : For the sake of brevity, ill just post the site and ask the Viewer to scroll down to the Studies which they can investigate more fully : http://marriage.about.com/od/cohabitation/qt/cohabfacts.htm and http://www.maritalhealing.com/conflicts/risksofcohabitation.php --- be SURE and scroll down to the section entitled : The Harmful effects on Cohabitation on Relationships for numerous formal Studies showing the Lifestyle to be a very poor choice due to the consequences . But alas, the 'whatever' generation could care less about the truth because it is to be suppressed since fun-deal breakers must be avoided at all and any costs.

Lastly, Ana's talk of 'slavery to morals' is a spin on what slavery really is ; slavery comes when One is a slave to his/her own lustful motives and put into action . FREEDOM , real freedom comes when a Person refuses to be enticed by an out of control sin sick Culture . Real freedom is living above reproach and its something that Secular Humanism cant offer . But it is something that a Person can be infused with thru a real life dramatic change that comes thru surrendering Ones life to Jesus, the epitomie of truth because he is The Son of God . The choice is either striving to find pleasure, meaning, fulfillment , purpose to Ones life thru things, experiences, people which does leave a person feeling unfulfilled on ones deatbed, or, inviting Christ to come into that Persons life which does result in great meaning, purpose, fulfillment because of who he is and the joy of one day living in eternity with our awesome God who spoke the Universe into existence and who has proved his love for mankind . Only pride and stubborn arrogance keeps people away from this truth., but it is learned in the final analysis by all.

VIEWERS: Want to talk more about making God king of your life and finding real longlasting fulfillment culminating in a wonderful safe eternity of joys unspeakable ? PM Me in strict confidence . Ill share with you how I went from a professed atheist to a lover of the Creator .
Thanks.

This concludes my post. Dave.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, here we are at the end of the debate...I'd like to say my opponent has deliberately tried to mislead you, dear audience, but I'm sure he genuinely believes exactly what he says. His points haven't changed much, but I'll address them again anyway.

First of all, we'll get this little matter of my personal situation out of the way. I did "shack up" as David would put it for over a year with my wife before marrying her. The reasons are my own and I regret none of it. We've been happily married for 7+ years at this point...and frankly my opponent in this discussion should feel ashamed for trying to make this debate personal.

My wife certainly wasn't the first woman I cohabited with either. I learned rather early that you won't really know what someone is like until you live with them. It's something I believe, based upon personal experience and I couldn't care less what someone like David thinks. His statistics showed that my marriage is more likely to end in divorce. His statistics are also from 15-30 years ago...back when cohabiting was an option taken by lower income couples. It's this lower income that will often lead to financial difficulties in marriage, and subsequently results in divorce. It's not some lack of morality, as David would claim, since more recent studies show that couples who cohabitate actually have no worse chances for marital success. Take a look...

http://m.livescience.com/36915-facts-couples-cohabiting-live-together.html

And...

http://time.com/20386/how-shacking-up-before-marriage-affects-a-relationships-success/

So clearly, newer studies show that David's much older studies are, at best misinformed...at worst total nonsense. Cohabiting won't make your relationship or marriage more likely to fall apart...the factors involved in that have more to do with age, income, and education. Please, keep in mind, these aren't merely studies done to refute what David has presented...the studies David presented are considered outdated and misleading information by everyone except the horribly biased right-wing christian sources who still use them.

Part 2 to follow...

 

[Ana the Ist]

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, (A)nd if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.
Thomas Jefferson

I chose this quote for a reason...that I should have to repeatedly answer this nonsense about our founding fathers and their minds is ridiculous. Only my opponent genuinely believes he can reach into the past and read the minds of our founding fathers. I know that you who read this know he cannot.

Those who started this country ran from the kind of tyranny David wants to employ. The kind of tyranny built upon the religious beliefs of one person's interpretation of a book. The kind of tyranny with a rather disgusting subtext which I'll explain to you shortly. Our founding fathers were willing to fight for the right of everyone to choose. Did they want you to choose morally? I think so...but they weren't willing to force people through law. Obedience to law doesn't make a man moral, nor does the removal of choice, for only with the ability to choose between right and wrong can a person be moral.

You see, I believe that you're smart enough to make your own choices. There's nothing inherently wrong or hurtful in the cohabitation of two people. Just as there's nothing inherently wrong with owning a gun or owning a pool. People may try to tell you that by doing so, you've endangered yourself with increased risks...but it's a choice you should have...because there's no inherent wrong. David wants you to think that cohabitation will increase your chances of divorce...although I've shown this wrong...because he believes that he knows better than you.

Therein lies that nasty subtext I was speaking of earlier. David wants to take this choice from you because well, you're too stupid to make it yourself. He thinks you're all so wrapped up in your own sin that you must be forced to do what he believes is right. He thinks you too weak to choose for yourself. In short, he thinks he knows better than you.

So ignore his pretense about the bible and God, he hasn't validated his beliefs through them. Ignore his pretense about the founding fathers and what he thinks they believed. This position is David's and no one else's. It's disgusting in how it views you...dear reader. It sees you as of low morals, low character, low intelligence, a beast too foolish to make its own choices.

I don't see it that way. I see the choice of cohabitation as one you're smart enough to make on your own...for better or worse. For that reason alone I've chosen to oppose him on this issue.

Thank you for reading.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

RESPONSE: Ill address Anas points in chronological order ----

1. Ana suggests that 'ive been deceptive' on this debate topic. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I appealed to the truth found in many Studies which I provided. The fact that a few of them are 10 years + old has nothing to do with veracity of the Study findings ; in fact , as in any other popularized immoral behavior, as time marches on the situation only worsens. Take STD's for example : in the 1980's the chance of getting one was seldom whereas the present illicit sexual culture we live in today has nearly 1 in 3 American Adults having contracted an STD (not including Teens) . And yes, I genuinely believe the things ive written about in this debate because they are founded on scientific analysis, the devastating outcome of playing house with peoples lives followed by abandonment , the blatant desire to go against common sense and established absolute moral laws (laws which we ALL expect others to treat us by , yet some demand 'the freedom' to abuse at random) and knowing the very moral character of God himself. My beliefs are not unfounded . They are quite rational .
2. I have no shame whatsoever about discussing this topic on a more personal level. Why should I ? I personally maintain a religion and principles to live according to, while Ana personally maintains a religion (atheistic secular humanism / whatever the culture comes up with) and not desiring sound moral principles be applied to certain areas of living. So why not discuss them on a personal level since we both hold each close to our hearts ? I see no reason for a shallow exchange in this debate which is why I asked the questions . You only answered one out of 4 I posed to you. Im glad you've been married for 7 years and I hope your marriage truly endures ; however based on the latest statistics, people who have Shacked up and then have gotton married stand a 70% chance of divorce eventually. 7 years is still relatively early in any marriage.
3. You don't have to care what 'I think" on this or any other matter ; you only need to care about the ultimate moral accountability which will come when you stand before the throne of our Creator . And pretending he doesn't exist because you desire to be an Atheist doesn't change that fact. People get divorced for a variety of reasons , but the foundation of a persons principles, ethics, and morals are what leads to the breakdown of a marriage . Things like financial burden can contribute to marital strife, but its a persons convictions or lack thereof that strongly impacts marital success.
4. This idea of 'trying out the cow before you buy it' mentality sounds like a plausible action , however, people shouldn't be degraded as such nor should they be willing to morally degrade themselves because they want something. In the case of SHackin , each party wants something from the other . The only problem is : theres always the open back door which offers no security, no guarantee, no huge desire to work out problems and challenges in a relationship, and a legal system that doesn't recognize Shacking Up as a viable approach . There isn't even a contract of some sort ; each flies by the seat of their pants and if the going gets too rough then its bail out time. Of course adding to the deceptive nature of Shacking up is the fact that the woman knows she better be on her best behavior (sexually and emotionally) in order to keep her male Partner interested in her for the long run ; she must use all of her feminine wiles including sex galore, cooking his favorite meals, catering to his otherwise bad habits, and the comfort of providing a dwelling suitable to his tastes. The man on the other hand , if he is even willing , must provide a sense of security along with some acts of affection thrown in for good measure to keep the Honey marginally satisfied. Its clearly the male who has the advantage in such illicit living arrangements because woman today are only too pleased to compromise vaues and principles to eventually and hopefully get what they want : A ring on the finger . Something that the male is under no obligation to even after years of playing house. He is free to roam at any time . She is too, but its a scary thing for most women.
5. The 'wholesome descretion' that Jefferson was talking about was centered on sound , proper, biblical values and principles .... not some fly by the seat of the pants way of living . Our Freedoms weren't given to us so we could twist them to suit our convenience , they were given so the fallout from such illicit living arrangements wouldn't hurt people and a society at large . Jefferson and the other Framers knew that absolute moral laws would have to be desired and maintained by the People and that they initially came from God for our own protection . What we have today, is the fallout from people doing whatever they feel like doing by desecrating the term called Freedom. And that is indeed shameful. Even more so when we consider that depraved minded Parents will pass their torch to the next generation of kids. The last 5 or 6 decades in America lends positive proof to that assertion . Nowadays, you can even have your developing unborn child legally yet immorally ripped to pieces while in whats supposed to be the safest place on earth , the mothers womb, in the name of freedom . We live in shocking times indeed. It would interesting to find studies on how many innocent unborn human beings get murdered from a Shackup situation compared to marital abortions which are vitually non existent.
6. Im pleased to be right wing. At least im right . I cant falter if I remain in Gods loving and protective Word given for mankind to prosper from. Left wingers however, have nothing but consequences to endure from their poor choices both in this world and for eternity.
7. We CAN know the minds of our countries Founding Fathers because they have left us with a huge number of personal documents as my previous post showed ; further, they strongly desired this country NOT be founded on atheistic humanism ideals but on Christian ideals, principles , morals, and decisions . You might be fascinated to know that 34% of ALL political discourses from our Founding Fathers mentioned God, Jesus, The Bible , The Almighty, and Christian principles. Not including the many other personal letters sent to other Political Dignitarys.
8. Sorry, but, people aren't smart enough to make their own wise choices apart from God and his loving absolute moral laws. It has only led to moral rot in America, precisely as the Bible says of any nation that turns his back on him for hedonism .
9. You don't have to answer to Me for your sins , that's Gods job. All im here to do is to show you that theres a far better way of living providing One is willing to dispense of his/her authority and let the Creator take the reigns. I know of No One who has ever regretted doing so, but I know scores of hurting people who thought their way was best.
10. I don't have to validate my choices ; they are already a given by God and I only have to desire and abide by them. Aside from the Bible telling you whats right from wrong, you've also been given an intrinsic Moral Conscience to apply to decisions ---- only todays typical American doesn't feel bad or any shame in suppressing the conscience . God however does offer a solution to that but it requires lowering Oneself while exalting Gods place in your life.
11. Its not disgusting on 'how I view others' Ana ; its proper to fairly analyze the behavior of Groups and the resulting fallout . You do the same with the CHristian Faith and those who are part of it. The message I bring is that One doesn't need to stay in a life of sin and that there is real freedom available by asking Christ into ones life to help the person be an Overcomer and to have the sins of immoral living arrangements and all other sins one has accumulated, totally erased from Gods books so the life that God intended for you can be fully lived out and realized. Only THEN, will the real purpose and fulfillment to life come because its not centered around Us but around The Creator of the Universe.
12. Why would One want to make a decision about a living arrangement that is for worse, as you put it ?! The idea behind doing life successfully, is from making wise choices . It doesn't take much at all to make just one major mistake that will have lifelong ramifications to it. Doing life according to Gods way is a safe way to go ; relying on Ones spurious feelings and emotions at the time, is not.
13. And finally, Anas links he offered up for consideration ; its interesting how both links use the disparaging term of Shacking Up when they are supposed to be Cohabitation friendly !!! Additionally, each site contradicts the other : One site has 2/3rd (66%) while the Other Site has it at 23% for people who entered into marriage without Shacking up first . Finally, one of the Sites is simply a Paper which some Journalist wrote up void of any hard statistical Study facts. Its too bad that neither of the sites cared to address the common fallout when the Shackup experience ends....especially for the woman whos future trust levels are shattered , how she feels like a used bill of goods , or the abandonment issues she and her kids will have to deal with for a long time to come. These sites are at worse bogus and at best, inconsistent. Whereas the links I provided were all scientific Studies performed by Universities , Psychologists , and other notable and reliable polling Sources. The bottom line is , the 'try out the cow before you buy it' philosophy pales in comparison to Gods way of doing relationships . In fact, ANYTHING that runs counter to Gods way is the wrong way and brings personal destruction --- something that a Person comes around to realizing after they take a look back on their life .

I once shacked up with a woman when we were in our 20's , and I know first hand how this Lifestyle works and the reasons behind it and ive talked to many others who have also. In this debate , I have shared hard scientific evidences thru Studies as well as the mendacious intentions of many who enter into illicit Cohabitation . If you would like to hear more about my personal convictions to immoral living and how receiving Christ into my life at age 30 has dramatically changed my life, Id be pleased to share it with you . Feel free to PM me.



Remember, only a life lived for God matters ; the alternative never was a viable one in the first place. Let God be God and you simply go along for the enjoyable ride in life. Its ALLLL about HIM and not us and our grappling for happiness that come with poor consequences.



Regards, Dave.