NC cohabitation ruling sets Freepers off
And here I was thinking that the news about NC’s anti-cohabitation law being ruled unconstitutional was an interesting tidbit, nothing particularly controversial. I didn’t think it was going to cause the internecine warfare being experienced over in Freeperville right now.
Somehow, this managed to devolve into a discussion about ghetto babies and sex with skunks. What a way to start off the week!
More idiocy from the bench. Constitutional for 201 years. Now suddenly, not. All hail our exalted black-robed leaders!
Oh, for pete’s sake! How is society harmed by a man and a woman who are not married living together?
You evidently failed to read my post: “Anyone who wonders what happens in a society where cohabitation takes the place of marriage need look no further than the nearest ghetto.” PS. I should say that in principle it doesn’t matter, since in practice it obviously does matter.
There are too many variables in that situation to draw any conclusions as to the cause for the problems of the ghetto. Again, there are many unmarried people who live together in this society. Not all live in ghettos. So, show me the harm of that one, single factor. And, in case you wonder, I’m a married man.
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.
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.
I heard about this this morning and it interested me because I am from NC and I cohabitate. I guess am damned for hell. I suppose if two cohabitators from the ghetto were to get married, they would suddenly be tranformed to a uppity Hamptons resident like yourself. Get off your high horse. Cohabitators are bad in your eyes. People with greater-than-thou attitudes are bad in mine.
I also doubt the right to fornicate is existent, let alone fundamental. ou think maybe it might be part of “liberty” and the “pursuit of happiness”?
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.
BUT!!! Sometimes single parents raising kids alone is better than married couples raising kids if either of the married parents is abusive or otherwise sucks as a parent. I know a lot of really good, hardworking single parents, and some excellent unmarried couples raising kids together, and some really crappy married coupels raising kids. To say that married couples raising kids is always better, I’d have to disagree. OK, yeah, 60+ of the time or so, yeah, it’s better.
I personally know many couples who live together. None of them are from a ghetto.
Family instability creates a ghetto–that is, a situation in which children end up raising themselves, and quite often, trying to raise their parents as well. People who put their own immediate and selfish desires above the welfare of children end up harming society, whatever their intentions when they decide that traditional values about marriage and family do not apply to them.
It’s not the lack of marriage that is the problem, it’s the lack of dedication and commitment to one’s partner and offspring that creates the problem for society. A piece of paper from the church and government doesn’t mean a thing without the commitment.
You do not have a God-given right to shack up.
Well, I guess I don’t specifically have a God-given right to play chess either, but then in the God-given privacy of my home, neither you nor the state has a God given right to prevent me from doing so. Same for other activities between consenting adults.
“This decision was made because the judges ruled that whatever my living arrangements may be is nobody’s business.”
When the consequences of your “living arrangements” impact me or my family or nation adversely, it IS my business.
They made these decisions so that they wouldn’t have to round up hundreds of thousands of couples who are hard working, taxpaying, law abiding Americans and throw them in jail. If what i am doing is morally wrong, (Morals that have obviously been established by the almighty doer-of-no-wrong, you.) then it is between me and me God. Not me and my government or my neighbor or you.
You aren’t law-abiding if you are breaking a law and I’m not aware of any organized pogroms to round up fornicators or adulterers in America.
Is that so? OK, here’s a scenario for you: You live in a twin. Your neighbor is into bestiality with skunks. As a result, your house smells like skunk 24-7 and you rarely get a good night’s sleep. Are you violating his “right to privacy” by convincing your local town council to outlaw the keeping of skunks on private property within city limits?
The “right to privacy” is abstract and difficult to define–which is why it wasn’t included in the BoR. The notion that local govenment doesn’t have the power to enforce local standards of decency as agreed upon by the majority of citizens is a liberal-tarian notion which had its coming-out party in the 1960s. I reject it completely. For those of you who accept it, I reckon your “enlightened” notions of privacy will be extinct the second the skunk-lover moves in next door.