Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cohabitation is bad for men, worse for women, and horrible for children
LifeSiteNews ^ | 10/9/07 | A. Patrick Schneider II

Posted on 10/09/2007 3:56:14 PM PDT by wagglebee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last
To: wagglebee
Here's what I told my sons:

The last place on the PLANET you can figure out what to do about your girlfriend is in her bed, in her house.

If you're not marrying her, there's a reason, even if you don't know the reason.

They didn't listen, of course.

21 posted on 10/09/2007 4:52:17 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Trails of troubles, roads of battle, paths of victory we shall walk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Yes, it is. Created by our Creator. But then men and women are in rebellion to Our Lord. They think they know better. **shaking my head** what fools they’ve become.


22 posted on 10/09/2007 4:52:31 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigred41; Dave Elias
Even just a few years ago if you were to pick an issue which all self-described conservatives would agree on it would be that cohabitation before marriage is a bad idea.

Being here at FreeRepublic means you are both most likely self-described conservatives.

No wonder we seldom agree here on FreeRepublic.

If anyone with any combination of opinions feels confident to declare themselves a conservative then there will be nothing we can ever agree on.

The same thing happened in the various Christian churches, the Jewish synagogues, and American society in general.

We are no longer a group of people with shared values. We are a bunch of individuals who happen to be occupying the same spot of land and joined only by the propositions that we will most always stop at red lights, and will mostly pay our taxes ... except for the bit we can get away with by claiming more charitable deductions than we ought.

23 posted on 10/09/2007 4:58:04 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
Even just a few years ago if you were to pick an issue which all self-described conservatives would agree on it would be that cohabitation before marriage is a bad idea.

Bingo! Now, of course, you get plenty of people who internalized the Free Love madness when they were young, played around with their lives--and, to be sure, the lives of their various "partners" and various children--and would today be leftist Democrats . . . except that they made a little money along the way, so they listen to Boortz and call themselves conservative. These are the people who are about to give Rudy Giuliani the GOP nomination. I just hope their kids have also signed on to Team Obama.

24 posted on 10/09/2007 5:13:05 PM PDT by madprof98 ("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: madprof98
Thanks for your comments. To extend mine:

Social conservatives oppose cohabitation because it is a sin.

Neoconservatives oppose cohabitation because they ran the numbers and found it to be bad public policy.

Populist conservatives oppose cohabitation because it is a scandal to the families and the neighborhood.

Conservative libertarians oppose cohabitation because they believe that free individuals who enter into important relationships should do so with formal contracts.

So how is it there are self-described conservatives that support cohabitation?

Did I miss a flavor of conservatism? Do all libertarians consider themselves conservative? Even the pothead libertarians?

26 posted on 10/09/2007 5:35:13 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I will look through my old notes and see if I can find reference to the study that showed that children in these situations do worse in terms of physical health, menal health, school achievements, and many other measures.


27 posted on 10/09/2007 5:54:46 PM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; All

Please help me define cohabitation, I’m still a bit fuzzy on the concept.

1) Does it still count as cohabitation if the couples kept themslves chaste until marraige?

2) If the answer is yes, which is better, a short term cohabitation where the couples did not remain chaste or a long term one where the couple refrained from relations until marraige?

3) Does it still count if it’s a relatively short period of time (day before marraige, one week after engagement)?


28 posted on 10/09/2007 5:58:29 PM PDT by Killborn (BASH BUSH!! All the COOL kids are doing it!!!! Perfect for people with no logic or reason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

It’s almost too obvious.


29 posted on 10/09/2007 6:00:53 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake but Accurate, Experts Say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

Methinks you misjudge libertarian conservatives. I’ve never once heard that particular ideology espoused from that particular corner.


30 posted on 10/09/2007 6:39:08 PM PDT by Melas (Offending stupid people since 1963)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear; Killborn
The issue is ridiculous without considering the people involved, who are not at all equal in intelligence, values, motivation, work ethic, waistline, or a thousand other factors.

Some people are better than others. "The others" just suck. Their failures are predictable, and cohabitation is just one of the countless things they screw up. Many cohabitate with no problems at all, while some people actually die from it.

Whenever so-called controversy arises, whenever statistics are quoted and studies cited, you can probably find an irrational demagogue trying to paint some absurd non-issue as an important one that we need to think about. Or spend money on, or pass laws to address.

If not for ourselves, then for the children.

31 posted on 10/09/2007 6:40:46 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Melas
If libertarians had their way then there would be no government. In place of government would be security organizations, probably similar to Blackwater.

Each individual would be free to enter into a security contract with one of many security organizations for his protection.

This individual would go about his business trying to make money to earn a living in order to afford to pay for a security organization to protect him while he slept, or to protect his home while he was out doing business.

Now it is possible that all of the contracts could just be verbal and done with a mere handshake.

I suppose one definition of a conservative libertarian would be someone who believed that he could read people well enough that he never needed written contracts. He would either enter into a verbal contract, or he wouldn't enter into any type of contract with a particular person.

Still one would expect that a practical libertarian who found himself living in a highly non-libertarian world demand written contracts.

A person who calls himself a conservative libertarian who would enter into a mere verbal contract with a woman to share living space, expenses, and the care and upkeep of children seems to be an oxymoron.

32 posted on 10/09/2007 7:07:10 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
"The issue is ridiculous without considering the people involved"

We can't tell whether it is truly right or wrong for a particular foreigner to enter the country illegally until we know his particular situation.

We can't tell whether or not we should throw the book at a pedophile until we know about his upbringing.

We can't really know why a particular person committed a capital offense so we should never use the death penalty.

We can't tell whether it is truly right or wrong for a woman to have an abortion until we know her particular situation.

...

Cohabitation is always wrong. If two people are so strapped for cash that they need to share living space ... even if just for a little while untile the wedding ... then maybe they should be spending more time working on their finances than planning the wedding.

And if they don't plan on marrying any time soon, then they can date until they get sick of each other or set a day for the wedding.

33 posted on 10/09/2007 7:15:41 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
Interesting, however, I suppose I was’t clear. I was stating that I doubt someone of a truly libertarian bent would sign on to a life-long commitment such as marriage. I don’t doubt that libertarians would sign on to a great many cohabitation related contracts, but I have dollars and donuts that such contracts would concern the division of property and assets at the end of the relationship and not the permanency of the relationship. In other words, it would have little or no semblance to marriage.
34 posted on 10/09/2007 7:19:57 PM PDT by Melas (Offending stupid people since 1963)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

Thank you for the response. You are right of course, it ultimately depends on the people.

I’m just trying to get a definition of cohabitation so I could better understand the concept, that’s all.


35 posted on 10/09/2007 7:23:24 PM PDT by Killborn (BASH BUSH!! All the COOL kids are doing it!!!! Perfect for people with no logic or reason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dave Elias

Not at all.

Notice the statistics the eminent Dr. quoted are not 100%.

You and your wife are obviously in the range of those who stayed married.

The fact that you were together five years first may be a clue to your success. Maybe it was God’s plan for the two of you.

God bless you both.


36 posted on 10/09/2007 7:24:32 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (- Attention all planets of the solar Federation--Secret plan codeword: Banana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Melas
There are libertarians that want to get rid of the WOD, but who never would take drugs themselves.

There are libertarians who are against abortion because it would deny a person the right to life.

There are libertarians that would freely choose to focus on a few things (one business, one wife, one family) even though they would allow others to continuously change their choices throughout their lives.

This may not be a large percentage of self-described libertarians, but the few of them that there are are clearly in evidence here on FreeRepublic.

37 posted on 10/09/2007 7:28:39 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
The issue is ridiculous without considering the people involved, who are not at all equal in intelligence, values, motivation, work ethic, waistline, or a thousand other factors.

Some people are better than others. "The others" just suck.

Hear, hear. This type of stuff is basically just a statistical trick. One merely needs to take married couples who have never lived together, a relatively small sample that is already predisposed to commitment, and compare them to every other couple thats ever lived together, for any reason. That's a huuuge sample that includes sub-groups such as, for instance, chronic drug users, untreated schizophrenics, lifelong economic refugees and your standard "find-a-guy-that'll-hit-me" women, all of whom subsequently skew the results of the whole Co-habitation group toward being more dysfunctional than the Married group.

Only a few seconds of thought is required to realize that the over-representation of these sub-groups in the co-habitating group has nothing to do with their choice not to marry, since, of course, getting married would do nothing to change their particular dysfunction. But their dysfunction does serve to reduce their tendency to want to marry, thereby dragging the success rate of any group they're included in down.

Its actually a pretty slick statistical manipulation.

38 posted on 10/09/2007 8:42:40 PM PDT by MichiganMan (Last year, this consumer spent over $1,700 on Linux compatible hardware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MichiganMan
Along these same lines, those that choose to marry before living with a partner are many, many times more likely to divorce than those that choose not to marry.
39 posted on 10/09/2007 9:10:25 PM PDT by MichiganMan (Last year, this consumer spent over $1,700 on Linux compatible hardware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

“Cohabitation is always wrong.”

What a sanctimonious statement.


40 posted on 10/09/2007 9:47:37 PM PDT by Dave Elias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson