Replies

But see, that's my point. People are saying that the behavior itself causes the (likely) outcome of the marriage. Therefore, since its the behavior itself, not what type of person is likely to display it, compelling someone to follow this behavior should drastically improve their chances at marriage.

That's obviously not true. Therefore, taking a group of people that are already likely to succeed at marriage and saying that a particular behavior they display is what makes the difference is missing the point of why they display that behavior in the first place.

And people who choose to cohabitate should have enough spine to take a little criticism.

I'm not saying don't criticize people if that's your thing. I'm saying don't try to argue things like "People that buy running shoes are 10 times less likely to die of a heart attack than those that don't."

The last study I read regarding cohabitation made the exact point that you are making; namely that people who didn't cohabit before they married were more likely to stay married because they are the sort of people who tend to stay committed.

So yes if the sociologists are correct then it is the cohabitors prior beliefs, attitudes and habits rather than the cohabitation itself that leads to a greater incidence of divorce down the road when they get married.

My point throughout this thread has not been to try and put forth a coherent argument against cohabitation, and I'm not at all motivated to criticize people just to get my jollies.

I was just making the point that it would seem that all self-described conservatives should at least all agree that cohabitation is a bad idea.

And so I believe that my position stands because I am not talking about the practice of cohabitation but the attitudes and beliefs of those who have no problem entering into cohabitative relationships: the sort of people who think cohabitation is OK are not the sort of people who call themselves conservative.

This site is called FreeRepublic. The "Republic" part is just as important as the "Free" part. Freedom for freedom's sake is pure nonsense. Conservative libertarians who want the government to interfere as little as possible in their lives, while simultaneously allowing themselves to be guided by the great truths and traditions of Western Civilization should have no problem hanging out here and enjoying the debates and discussions.

But those libertarians who believe that noone should be able to tell them what to do ... no how ... no ways ... are just doomed to constant silly sophomorish argumentation with the vast majority of Freepers.