This is the fundamental error in your thinking. Fornication is not a "private sin." In fact, there is no such thing as "private sin." All sins harm people besides the ones directly involved.
First, consider that society is simply the collection of individuals who comprise it, so when one individual member of society is diminished, society must necessarily be diminished.
But the harmful effects of fornication go beyond the individuals involved.
Consider that children are best raised by their natural parents in a committed, exclusive, lifetime relationship, and that copulation is ordered towards procreation and child-rearing. So the act of copulation connotes a lifetime commitment between the partners. Sexual partners who have no intention of a lifetime commitment are lying to each other with their bodies.
The effect of living with this lie is to dissociate in the minds of those involved the natural connection between copulation and marriage. The consequences for the children of such people are manifested in abortion and broken homes, the further effects of which on society are obvious.
Finally, people who live together are setting a bad public example, which is harmful to children and adults alike.
_____________________________________________________________
Now, you can play the police-in-my-bedroom card if you like, but recognizing the above does not logically entail a police state. Not every sin should be criminalized because we're all sinners, and we'd all be in jail if all sins were criminalized. But grave evils should be criminalized when the benefit to society of criminalization exceeds the harm caused by criminalization.
In this case, there is no harm caused to society by criminalizing cohabitation. Such a law does not necessitate "cameras in the bedroom," just proof that two people of the opposite sex share a common legal address. And the benefit to society is a reduction in the above mentioned evils.
Nonetheless, sins should not equate to crimes. Sins should be dealt with through the churches, crimes through the elected government. The question is how far do you take religious moral teachings and convert them into secular laws?
Consider that children are best raised by their natural parents in a committed, exclusive, lifetime relationship, and that copulation is ordered towards procreation and child-rearing.
Nevertheless, copulation took place tens of thousands of years before Christianity or Judaism. It took place and children were reared long before our current Christian moral structure. But today, people simply do not get together and marry simply to "copulate" for the purpose of procreation. Sex is a part of the love the two have for each other regardless of whether they want children or not. And that sex may take many forms, none of which is the business of anyone but those two.
So the act of copulation connotes a lifetime commitment between the partners. Sexual partners who have no intention of a lifetime commitment are lying to each other with their bodies.
Not so. They are simply recognizing that sex is a part of the relationship they have, not the entire relationship. And what you are doing here is stating a moral position that the state should definitely remain out of.
The effect of living with this lie is to dissociate in the minds of those involved the natural connection between copulation and marriage. The consequences for the children of such people are manifested in abortion and broken homes, the further effects of which on society are obvious.
Perhaps, but conjecture is all that is. Marriage today is not frequently for the creation of children. Animals do that. Humans and human marriage is much more. Marriage is a serious thing, and two people should not commit to it initially for anything other than a desire to spend the rest of their lives together. Sex is natural and as I said before, has been around a lot longer than any religion.
Finally, people who live together are setting a bad public example, which is harmful to children and adults alike.
There are thousands of bad examples around. It is not the place of the state to legislate against bad examples.
Now, you can play the police-in-my-bedroom card if you like, but recognizing the above does not logically entail a police state. Not every sin should be criminalized because we're all sinners, and we'd all be in jail if all sins were criminalized. But grave evils should be criminalized when the benefit to society of criminalization exceeds the harm caused by criminalization.
And I submit that the 6 million couples living outside of marriage do not in any way cause the 50 to 60 percent divorce rate or the millions of children of divorced parents. The state should step in when an act directly causes harm, such as crying fire in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire).
In this case, there is no harm caused to society by criminalizing cohabitation. Such a law does not necessitate "cameras in the bedroom," just proof that two people of the opposite sex share a common legal address.
You don't restrict freedom because the law causes no harm to society. You restrict a freedom because it leads to a direct harm to others. You have demonstrated no such harm. In fact, your law would drive love underground. Your law would simply lead to a lot more one night stands. You forget the law of unintended consequences.