The libertarians (particularly those shacking up with their girlfriends) will no doubt cheer this one on, but consider the purpose behind such a law: the interest of society in promoting stable relationships in which children can best be raised. Anyone who wonders what happens in a society where cohabitation takes the place of marriage need look no further than the nearest ghetto.
OK, Dr Laura. Calm down. Take your meds.
Oh, for pete's sake! How is society harmed by a man and a woman who are not married living together? Since over half of all marriages end in divorce, anyhow, I fail to see the harm here.
Rights belong to the individual. Two individuals, each with separate rights to live where they want, as long as they can afford to, choose to live in the same house or apartment.
Who cares? Young people do it all the time. They're called roommates. Other people share housing, as well.
It is not the place of the state to decide who shall live with whom. It's that simple.
The wisest response is often not the most appreciated. Obviously, some folks have the convenience of their desires and priorities ahead of the stability of their children, grandchildren and absolutely forget the society in general. You´re right.
You are right.
The radical libertarians have come crawling out of their holes to attack you on this one.
ANY sociaety has a RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITy to establish standards of acceptable behavior.
The fact that this law was on the books for 200 years AS WELL AS SIMILAR laws all over the nation, indicates that the Founding Fathers who WROTE our Constitution had no problem with them.
But our radical liberal courts, with some help from the anti-western ACLU, suddenly "discvovered" a new right - the right to live like swine.
As you so well point out, SO MANY of our societal problems today spring from illegitimate births - violence, welfare costs, lack of moral standards, no sense of community or patriotism, lack of the concept of honor, etc. etc. All of these have roots, in whole or in part, in the disintegration of the nuclear family, the basic building block of any civilized society.
Idiotic decisions by Federal Courts like this one are indeed contributing to the collapse of western civilization.
Cohabitation isn't "taking the place" of anything here. This is a 40-year-old woman with no plans for marriage. The article doesn't mention any kids. Rent everywhere is expensive. The only thing cohabitation may be "taking the place" of in this instance is a 40-something couple still living with their parents. Not the end of civilization.
So an unmarried coupel who live together are jewish? I don't get it. A ghetto is a jewish slum.
go check a ghetto. tell me how many co-habitaing couples there are.
you're not gonna find many, you will, however, find single moms by the score. you wanna find cohabitation, look at middle class white people in the suburbs. most of the ones who have and raise kids are just fine.
what you're pointing at is the breakdown of family values due to indiscriminate sex. people out "having fun" who end up as single parents.
Single folks raising kids alone is bad.
Two adults raising kids together is good.
We agree.
Whether they are 'married' is nobody's business.
Wow, a slippery-slope & red herring argument rolled into one. I'm impressed.
So, I take it that you support the state when it oulaws smoking in parks and in one's own home if there are children present. I further understand that you would support the state if it began to require certain height and weight standards for citizens because the health of the citizens also contributes to stable relationships and healthy environments within which to raise children.
The state has no business telling adults whom they can live with. None whatsoever. Ever.
And no, I'm not "shacking up" with anyone.
It's not about the good of society, it's all about ME!
"the purpose behind such a law: the interest of society in promoting stable relationships in which children can best be raised"
This reminds me of a plan that Bill O'Reilly was promoting a couple of years ago. BO'R stated that the US should offer cash incentives to anyone who got married and stayed married. He said this would increase the financial status and provide a better home for raising children, among those who take advantage of the program. He based these statements on statistics that showed higher income levels in married couples (and thus concluded that marriage was the cause of higher income) and on data related to life performance in children from unmarried homes vs. married homes (and thus concluded that marriage made unsuitable parents into great parents). He concluded that government subsidies for being married were the answer...never mind considering that some people are not suitable parents...And nevermind that some people just aren't going to have high income levels and, ESPECIALLY, nevermind that "forcing" people who (should not be married) into a situation where children may be brought into the world by parents who may just marry for "crack money" or parents who hate each other will result in "reverse evolution".
Of course, in typical BO'R style, he refused comment from anyone who blew his proposal out of the water.
Not all couples living together have kids. So, now I suppose I'm in for a lecture on the sins of sex which is not done for procreation.....
oh PUH-lease.