Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Cohabitation before marriage

Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 3:46:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm wondering what people on DDO think about this. I've read the opinions questions on the matter but I'm not convinced either way.

Some use arguments against premarital sex to refute this point. However, I don't think that's necessarily valid because cohabitation doesn't always lead to sex. If the two people sleep in separate beds, I think it may be morally acceptable even if they're in the same apartment.

Some say the lack of commitment, but I'm excluding cohabitation without the intention of marriage. Assuming that they really do intend to marry after cohabitation, would that still make cohabitation bad?

On the other side of the argument, most argue it's important to 'test drive' the marriage before it actually happens. Is this really so important that the regular customs of living together after marriage need not be observed? In the past, many if not most people didn't even know their partner until the day they got married. In the cases where they do know their future spouse before marriage, they didn't necessarily know each other well. However, there are many famous couples known for sticking together, even during severe hardships throughout history. It may seem that with dating, people already get to know each other very well before marriage.

What is your opinion?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 10:29:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 3:46:00 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm wondering what people on DDO think about this. I've read the opinions questions on the matter but I'm not convinced either way.

Some use arguments against premarital sex to refute this point. However, I don't think that's necessarily valid

It's not...

because cohabitation doesn't always lead to sex.

Exactly.

If the two people sleep in separate beds, I think it may be morally acceptable even if they're in the same apartment.

It is. I mean, if premarital sex is the only thing that'd make it immoral, then removing sex from the equation also removes the element of immorality. I cannot see any other argument against it that would really be compelling.

Some say the lack of commitment, but I'm excluding cohabitation without the intention of marriage. Assuming that they really do intend to marry after cohabitation, would that still make cohabitation bad?

No, not in my opinion.

On the other side of the argument, most argue it's important to 'test drive' the marriage before it actually happens. Is this really so important that the regular customs of living together after marriage need not be observed? In the past, many if not most people didn't even know their partner until the day they got married. In the cases where they do know their future spouse before marriage, they didn't necessarily know each other well. However, there are many famous couples known for sticking together, even during severe hardships throughout history. It may seem that with dating, people already get to know each other very well before marriage.

You're comparing outdated marriage customs to modern ones. Sure, there are still plenty of countries that practice arranged marriages, but if we are talking about western countries then I see no harm in our modern methods of preparing for marriage. Perhaps living together before marriage would go against custom in certain countries, hence it wouldn't be a *good* thing in the opinions of the majority there. Here in America though, we fought for freedoms and liberties that allow us the right to do things like cohabitation before marriage. I don't see it being any more controversial than a guy and girl living together as roommates (which I've done before), especially if they aren't having pre-marital sex.

Cohabitation allows for the experience of living together and seeing how well they can do so before making a full life-long commitment. There have been many times where such practices of cohabitation have been for the benefit of the individuals involved in such living arrangements. I could give scenarios or examples, but you've already covered it with the umbrella term "test-drive", because essentially that's really what it is. Sure, there have been cases where arranged marriages or marriages between people who barely know each other have actually been successful and long-lasting. However, in America and other western countries, we have the freedom to take it one step further and actually get to know one another before making such a commitment.

Ultimately, I think the real value of cohabitation before marriage is the experience that can be gained from such a thing. People don't have to *learn* to love the other person over time like in some arranged marriages. They can develop that loving bond before-hand, which ultimately strengthens the marriage once they do end up tying the knot because they are already starting the marriage while in a loving relationship that has made it past the stage of living together.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 10:32:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm pro-cohabitation. I'm not opposed to pre-marital sex, so that's not a con. Also, it is true that living with someone gives you unique insights into not only what marriage would be like, but also what kind of person they are and how they conduct themselves. It also reduces your expenses as a couple, and tests how you each handle various household responsibilities (e.g. finances). Plus, who doesn't want to spend more time with their significant other?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Trivium
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 7:03:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
All I can say is that what works for me is: Getting gradually more sexual with someone you know you have a good chance of having a future with, and then not actually sharing a house with them until marriage.

I know that there are men who use cohabiting as a crutch because they're cowards who would like to enjoy the frequent sexing without the commitment of marriage.
Nivek
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 2:39:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Marriage is a declining institution, you live with an official label that forces you to act in accordance with society's norms or more specifically, your reputation as a couple. Its similar to a binding contract, forcing each spouse for a commitment they may not like. Cohabitation takes away that label making everyone else at ease with whatever the hell they wanna do in life.

Why bother with a fixed institution when you can move around fluidly with other methods. Besides, The extended family is in decline, the all powerful nuclear family have possessiveness issues. At least, that's how I see anyway.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 5:33:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 10:29:14 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 4/12/2015 3:46:00 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm wondering what people on DDO think about this. I've read the opinions questions on the matter but I'm not convinced either way.

Some use arguments against premarital sex to refute this point. However, I don't think that's necessarily valid

It's not...

because cohabitation doesn't always lead to sex.

Exactly.

If the two people sleep in separate beds, I think it may be morally acceptable even if they're in the same apartment.

It is. I mean, if premarital sex is the only thing that'd make it immoral, then removing sex from the equation also removes the element of immorality. I cannot see any other argument against it that would really be compelling.
Yep, I get that too.
Some say the lack of commitment, but I'm excluding cohabitation without the intention of marriage. Assuming that they really do intend to marry after cohabitation, would that still make cohabitation bad?

No, not in my opinion.

On the other side of the argument, most argue it's important to 'test drive' the marriage before it actually happens. Is this really so important that the regular customs of living together after marriage need not be observed? In the past, many if not most people didn't even know their partner until the day they got married. In the cases where they do know their future spouse before marriage, they didn't necessarily know each other well. However, there are many famous couples known for sticking together, even during severe hardships throughout history. It may seem that with dating, people already get to know each other very well before marriage.

You're comparing outdated marriage customs to modern ones. Sure, there are still plenty of countries that practice arranged marriages, but if we are talking about western countries then I see no harm in our modern methods of preparing for marriage. Perhaps living together before marriage would go against custom in certain countries, hence it wouldn't be a *good* thing in the opinions of the majority there. Here in America though, we fought for freedoms and liberties that allow us the right to do things like cohabitation before marriage. I don't see it being any more controversial than a guy and girl living together as roommates (which I've done before), especially if they aren't having pre-marital sex.

I'm fairly sure that cohabitation is a recent development even in the US though. :P Anyway, I agree, it's acceptable for a guy and a girl to live together as roomates, provided they don't share a bed or anything and maintain a distance. That would apply to cohabitation before marriage as well, I agree.

However, since others don't know what you do at home in your private life, cohabitation may still raise some eyebrows among those who presume cohabitants always have sexual relationships . Come to think of it, I probably wouldn't do this for the same reason - others might think I have a sexual relationship with someone to whom I'm not married, even if it's untrue.

Cohabitation allows for the experience of living together and seeing how well they can do so before making a full life-long commitment. There have been many times where such practices of cohabitation have been for the benefit of the individuals involved in such living arrangements. I could give scenarios or examples, but you've already covered it with the umbrella term "test-drive", because essentially that's really what it is. Sure, there have been cases where arranged marriages or marriages between people who barely know each other have actually been successful and long-lasting. However, in America and other western countries, we have the freedom to take it one step further and actually get to know one another before making such a commitment.

Ultimately, I think the real value of cohabitation before marriage is the experience that can be gained from such a thing. People don't have to *learn* to love the other person over time like in some arranged marriages. They can develop that loving bond before-hand, which ultimately strengthens the marriage once they do end up tying the knot because they are already starting the marriage while in a loving relationship that has made it past the stage of living together.
Yes, I do like your final argument!

By the way, I wonder what the conservatives think about this. In Hong Kong, some organisation makes polls about teenagers' sexual attitudes every now and then, then the media will print headlines about how appallingly open kids these days are. Cohabitation happens to be one of the areas frequently studied, so there's an implication that cohabitation is improper, and on the same level as more abominable forms of sexual openness, like premarital sex or PDAs.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 6:26:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 2:39:02 AM, Nivek wrote:
Marriage is a declining institution, you live with an official label that forces you to act in accordance with society's norms or more specifically, your reputation as a couple. Its similar to a binding contract, forcing each spouse for a commitment they may not like. Cohabitation takes away that label making everyone else at ease with whatever the hell they wanna do in life.

Why bother with a fixed institution when you can move around fluidly with other methods. Besides, The extended family is in decline, the all powerful nuclear family have possessiveness issues. At least, that's how I see anyway.

Breaching the fixed institution can have catastrophic repercussions. Look at France, where le President de la Republique has four children... without ever marrying. After separating with his partner (with whom he had never been married), he has gone on to have two girlfriends. I don't think that's the kind of attitude we want in a head of state, or in any citizen of a civilised society.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Nivek
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 9:36:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 6:26:51 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Breaching the fixed institution can have catastrophic repercussions. Look at France, where le President de la Republique has four children... without ever marrying. After separating with his partner (with whom he had never been married), he has gone on to have two girlfriends. I don't think that's the kind of attitude we want in a head of state, or in any citizen of a civilised society.

I understand your concern :) but that Perverted Pseudo Socialist Robin Thicke Lookalike isn't representative of those currently cohabiting. I don't see how an official label prevents you from manipulating and cheating on your partners. The core of the issue is loyalty and whatever life ethics you hold, it does not hinge on some social institution. Marriages are supposedly used to enforce morality, but not all see it that way. If we look at society now, there is no such thing as a 'single truth' but rather a multitude of perspectives to take and give. The same thing can be said of marriage. Some sees it as some sort ritual that cement their relationships, some sees it as a prison.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 10:07:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 9:36:00 AM, Nivek wrote:
At 4/13/2015 6:26:51 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Breaching the fixed institution can have catastrophic repercussions. Look at France, where le President de la Republique has four children... without ever marrying. After separating with his partner (with whom he had never been married), he has gone on to have two girlfriends. I don't think that's the kind of attitude we want in a head of state, or in any citizen of a civilised society.

I understand your concern :) but that Perverted Pseudo Socialist Robin Thicke Lookalike isn't representative of those currently cohabiting. I don't see how an official label prevents you from manipulating and cheating on your partners. The core of the issue is loyalty and whatever life ethics you hold, it does not hinge on some social institution. Marriages are supposedly used to enforce morality, but not all see it that way. If we look at society now, there is no such thing as a 'single truth' but rather a multitude of perspectives to take and give. The same thing can be said of marriage. Some sees it as some sort ritual that cement their relationships, some sees it as a prison.

You think he looks like Thicke? :O :O :O

No, no, please don't get me wrong, I don't think he's representative of all cohabitants at all. I meant to address your arguement about doing away with fixed institutions. I don't disagree that loyalty is the issue, but I see it this way: true, marriage doesn't guarantee loyalty, but the lack thereof would certainly undermine it. Marriage is what we call a 'rite' in Confucian thought (it probably differs from the Western idea of a rite). In Confucianism, rites are treated as 'mechanisms' that encourage morality and ethics. Sure, there are people who follow rites but do not adhere to the moral values involved, but to do away with rites would require much more self-control on people's part that makes morality harder to achieve without a sufficient level of self-cultivation.

There are differing views of rites in Confucianism - Xunzi was a staunch advocate of rites and thinks it's the basis of everything, while Mencius placed less emphasis - but all agree that rites are necessary for the encouragement of morality.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 10:39:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 3:46:00 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm wondering what people on DDO think about this. I've read the opinions questions on the matter but I'm not convinced either way.

Some use arguments against premarital sex to refute this point. However, I don't think that's necessarily valid because cohabitation doesn't always lead to sex. If the two people sleep in separate beds, I think it may be morally acceptable even if they're in the same apartment.

It doesn't always lead to sex, but let's be honest: it's very likely to. Men and women are biologically programmed to have sex, and their emotions will be hounding them to do so, if they find the cohabitator attractive. There would have to be a large amount of restraint and social conditioning for a combination like that not to end in some playtime, and even then there would be instances where there isn't anything that could stop them.


Some say the lack of commitment, but I'm excluding cohabitation without the intention of marriage. Assuming that they really do intend to marry after cohabitation, would that still make cohabitation bad?

I think it can work, but only under certain conditions. As it stands in the Western world, where women are (wrongly) encouraged to explore themselves sexually with as many men as they want, women are simply going to cohabitate, say that they look for marriage, and then jump ship when they get bored and they find a more attractive man. The same applies to men. PUAs and players need to be seen as a threat to society.

So, for this kind of set-up to work, women and men need to be shamed for sleeping around (women are far more sensitive to society's pressure than men are, on average). To help keep men in line, there should be an emphasis on physical exclusion wherever possible, rather than merely shaming.


On the other side of the argument, most argue it's important to 'test drive' the marriage before it actually happens. Is this really so important that the regular customs of living together after marriage need not be observed? In the past, many if not most people didn't even know their partner until the day they got married. In the cases where they do know their future spouse before marriage, they didn't necessarily know each other well. However, there are many famous couples known for sticking together, even during severe hardships throughout history. It may seem that with dating, people already get to know each other very well before marriage.

Yeah, that's the trade-off. People are forced together by outside influences, so the expense is autonomy. However, attraction can still take effect, regardless of whether the couple were forced together. Women are attracted to status (wealth, protection etc.), and men are attracted to physical beauty (physical attractiveness, fertility etc.). So the people organising the marriage can keep these attractions in mind so they can create a marriage that will likely create attraction. To modern, Liberal countries, this probably seems like fascism, but it can definitely work and has done so in the past, as you mentioned.

What is your opinion?

Cohabitation before marriage can be a society destroying mistake, if not correctly controlled. But it can be done, if given the right societal constructs that account for human's natural inclinations.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 11:10:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is your opinion?

Cohabitation before marriage can be a society destroying mistake, if not correctly controlled. But it can be done, if given the right societal constructs that account for human's natural inclinations.

Couldn't it just as easily be institutionally devastating should it not happen? Imagine the divorce rates when you find out that the person you are living with never meets your standards of cleanliness, upkeep of the residence, doesn't pull their load in expenses, etc. There is no real way of finding that out unless you, ya know, live together first.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 11:16:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thanks for your opinions ^^

At 4/15/2015 10:39:53 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 4/12/2015 3:46:00 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm wondering what people on DDO think about this. I've read the opinions questions on the matter but I'm not convinced either way.

Some use arguments against premarital sex to refute this point. However, I don't think that's necessarily valid because cohabitation doesn't always lead to sex. If the two people sleep in separate beds, I think it may be morally acceptable even if they're in the same apartment.


It doesn't always lead to sex, but let's be honest: it's very likely to. Men and women are biologically programmed to have sex, and their emotions will be hounding them to do so, if they find the cohabitator attractive. There would have to be a large amount of restraint and social conditioning for a combination like that not to end in some playtime, and even then there would be instances where there isn't anything that could stop them.
I agree. Undeniably, it does lead to sex sometimes, and I see why you argue it's likely to happen. I also agree that there needs to be more restraint on the cohabitor's part. I think a big problem is that the education system in most places doesn't place enough emphasis on morals and character building, and does not teach the proper rules of propriety, of which abstinence from sex before marriage is one. As I've joked on DDO before, most teachers prefer abstinence - abstinence from talking about sex ed, that is. There should be more education concerning this so that more people know it is immoral to have sex before marriage, and feel guilty in the event that they do it.

Some say the lack of commitment, but I'm excluding cohabitation without the intention of marriage. Assuming that they really do intend to marry after cohabitation, would that still make cohabitation bad?

I think it can work, but only under certain conditions. As it stands in the Western world, where women are (wrongly) encouraged to explore themselves sexually with as many men as they want, women are simply going to cohabitate, say that they look for marriage, and then jump ship when they get bored and they find a more attractive man. The same applies to men. PUAs and players need to be seen as a threat to society.
I see, that's an argument similar to the one above.
So, for this kind of set-up to work, women and men need to be shamed for sleeping around (women are far more sensitive to society's pressure than men are, on average). To help keep men in line, there should be an emphasis on physical exclusion wherever possible, rather than merely shaming.
I agree, it's important for the general populace to be aware that infidelity is immoral, though I'd place more emphasis on ingraining proper moral values in people so that they feel their innate sense of guilt for being 'players' or for 'sleeping around'. Again, education is key; people need to be genuinely aware of what's right and what's wrong. If people can be trusted with fidelity and abstinence, then cohabitation before marriage would potentially be beneficial to them.

On the other side of the argument, most argue it's important to 'test drive' the marriage before it actually happens. Is this really so important that the regular customs of living together after marriage need not be observed? In the past, many if not most people didn't even know their partner until the day they got married. In the cases where they do know their future spouse before marriage, they didn't necessarily know each other well. However, there are many famous couples known for sticking together, even during severe hardships throughout history. It may seem that with dating, people already get to know each other very well before marriage.

Yeah, that's the trade-off. People are forced together by outside influences, so the expense is autonomy. However, attraction can still take effect, regardless of whether the couple were forced together. Women are attracted to status (wealth, protection etc.), and men are attracted to physical beauty (physical attractiveness, fertility etc.). So the people organising the marriage can keep these attractions in mind so they can create a marriage that will likely create attraction. To modern, Liberal countries, this probably seems like fascism, but it can definitely work and has done so in the past, as you mentioned.
LOL, I'm not so concerned about attraction really. I think the healthiest relationship is one where both sides respect their differences, and love each other for their virtues and talents. I think such a spiritual relationship is more ideal than any based on physical appearance or on status. Li Qingzhao and Zhao Mingcheng are a famous couple who epitomised this kind of relationship.

What is your opinion?

Cohabitation before marriage can be a society destroying mistake, if not correctly controlled. But it can be done, if given the right societal constructs that account for human's natural inclinations.

I agree. I think that, a conditional support for cohabitation is the most logical answer. I can see its merits, but also the inevitable defects which will occur if society is poorly prepared. Thanks to all who replied to this thread!
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 11:53:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 11:10:25 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
What is your opinion?

Cohabitation before marriage can be a society destroying mistake, if not correctly controlled. But it can be done, if given the right societal constructs that account for human's natural inclinations.

Couldn't it just as easily be institutionally devastating should it not happen? Imagine the divorce rates when you find out that the person you are living with never meets your standards of cleanliness, upkeep of the residence, doesn't pull their load in expenses, etc.

Well yes, that could certainly happen, if the necessary societal constraints aren't in place. Divorce has to become illegal or at least heavily shamed, or else you end up with either what the West has with a skyrocketing divorce rate + plummeting marriage rate (especially amongst their whites natives). This will prevent divorce. This, in conjunction with promoting tailored gender roles amongst society, and society will begin to produce attractive men and women that meet the base standards you talk about.

It's not as straightforward as I make it out to be here, but that's the general idea which will help prevent the specific problem you're talking about.

There is no real way of finding that out unless you, ya know, live together first.

It's not easy to get around this problem, but saying that there is "no real way" is far to extreme. For example, the parents of the two parties can preselect.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 11:57:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 11:53:50 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:10:25 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
What is your opinion?

Cohabitation before marriage can be a society destroying mistake, if not correctly controlled. But it can be done, if given the right societal constructs that account for human's natural inclinations.

Couldn't it just as easily be institutionally devastating should it not happen? Imagine the divorce rates when you find out that the person you are living with never meets your standards of cleanliness, upkeep of the residence, doesn't pull their load in expenses, etc.

Well yes, that could certainly happen, if the necessary societal constraints aren't in place. Divorce has to become illegal or at least heavily shamed, or else you end up with either what the West has with a skyrocketing divorce rate + plummeting marriage rate (especially amongst their whites natives). This will prevent divorce. This, in conjunction with promoting tailored gender roles amongst society, and society will begin to produce attractive men and women that meet the base standards you talk about.

It's not as straightforward as I make it out to be here, but that's the general idea which will help prevent the specific problem you're talking about.

There is no real way of finding that out unless you, ya know, live together first.

It's not easy to get around this problem, but saying that there is "no real way" is far to extreme. For example, the parents of the two parties can preselect.

I think its fair to consider arranged marriages or making divorce illegal "to extreme". Much more so than cohabitation.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 12:04:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 11:16:28 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Thanks for your opinions ^^

At 4/15/2015 10:39:53 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 4/12/2015 3:46:00 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm wondering what people on DDO think about this. I've read the opinions questions on the matter but I'm not convinced either way.

Some use arguments against premarital sex to refute this point. However, I don't think that's necessarily valid because cohabitation doesn't always lead to sex. If the two people sleep in separate beds, I think it may be morally acceptable even if they're in the same apartment.


It doesn't always lead to sex, but let's be honest: it's very likely to. Men and women are biologically programmed to have sex, and their emotions will be hounding them to do so, if they find the cohabitator attractive. There would have to be a large amount of restraint and social conditioning for a combination like that not to end in some playtime, and even then there would be instances where there isn't anything that could stop them.
I agree. Undeniably, it does lead to sex sometimes, and I see why you argue it's likely to happen. I also agree that there needs to be more restraint on the cohabitor's part. I think a big problem is that the education system in most places doesn't place enough emphasis on morals and character building, and does not teach the proper rules of propriety, of which abstinence from sex before marriage is one.

Absolutely. Both sexes are indoctrinated to have casual sex. Also, modern women (specifically young girls), in my parts of the world, are mostly vapid and without any character. Men over here are sitting at home playing videogames and wasting their lives. Little character. I'm not sure about your part of the world, so I'll have to take your word for it, at least for now.

As I've joked on DDO before, most teachers prefer abstinence - abstinence from talking about sex ed, that is. There should be more education concerning this so that more people know it is immoral to have sex before marriage, and feel guilty in the event that they do it.

That's certainly a way to prevent degeneracy and social destruction: through a societal acceptance of a robust morality system.


Some say the lack of commitment, but I'm excluding cohabitation without the intention of marriage. Assuming that they really do intend to marry after cohabitation, would that still make cohabitation bad?

I think it can work, but only under certain conditions. As it stands in the Western world, where women are (wrongly) encouraged to explore themselves sexually with as many men as they want, women are simply going to cohabitate, say that they look for marriage, and then jump ship when they get bored and they find a more attractive man. The same applies to men. PUAs and players need to be seen as a threat to society.
I see, that's an argument similar to the one above.
So, for this kind of set-up to work, women and men need to be shamed for sleeping around (women are far more sensitive to society's pressure than men are, on average). To help keep men in line, there should be an emphasis on physical exclusion wherever possible, rather than merely shaming.
I agree, it's important for the general populace to be aware that infidelity is immoral, though I'd place more emphasis on ingraining proper moral values in people so that they feel their innate sense of guilt for being 'players' or for 'sleeping around'. Again, education is key; people need to be genuinely aware of what's right and what's wrong. If people can be trusted with fidelity and abstinence, then cohabitation before marriage would potentially be beneficial to them.

Yes, but you'd also have to have barriers to prevent people from reverting to immoral conduct.


On the other side of the argument, most argue it's important to 'test drive' the marriage before it actually happens. Is this really so important that the regular customs of living together after marriage need not be observed? In the past, many if not most people didn't even know their partner until the day they got married. In the cases where they do know their future spouse before marriage, they didn't necessarily know each other well. However, there are many famous couples known for sticking together, even during severe hardships throughout history. It may seem that with dating, people already get to know each other very well before marriage.

Yeah, that's the trade-off. People are forced together by outside influences, so the expense is autonomy. However, attraction can still take effect, regardless of whether the couple were forced together. Women are attracted to status (wealth, protection etc.), and men are attracted to physical beauty (physical attractiveness, fertility etc.). So the people organising the marriage can keep these attractions in mind so they can create a marriage that will likely create attraction. To modern, Liberal countries, this probably seems like fascism, but it can definitely work and has done so in the past, as you mentioned.
LOL, I'm not so concerned about attraction really. I think the healthiest relationship is one where both sides respect their differences, and love each other for their virtues and talents.

The attraction can certainly help keep them together.

I think such a spiritual relationship is more ideal than any based on physical appearance or on status. Li Qingzhao and Zhao Mingcheng are a famous couple who epitomised this kind of relationship.

You'd need to reinstate this religious kind of ideal in many countries, because a lot are certainly not wholly religious or spiritually thinking, anymore. But besides that, maybe this would work; I don't really have the knowledge to comment.

What is your opinion?

Cohabitation before marriage can be a society destroying mistake, if not correctly controlled. But it can be done, if given the right societal constructs that account for human's natural inclinations.

I agree. I think that, a conditional support for cohabitation is the most logical answer.

I think a very obvious one would be something like 'have kids within 3 months of marrying or you lose your marriage. If you are married, you get tax cuts on your children's expense'. Again, not too well versed in this idea, but it does seem prima facie a good idea.

I can see its merits, but also the inevitable defects which will occur if society is poorly prepared. Thanks to all who replied to this thread!

=)
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 12:07:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 11:57:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:53:50 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:10:25 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
What is your opinion?

Cohabitation before marriage can be a society destroying mistake, if not correctly controlled. But it can be done, if given the right societal constructs that account for human's natural inclinations.

Couldn't it just as easily be institutionally devastating should it not happen? Imagine the divorce rates when you find out that the person you are living with never meets your standards of cleanliness, upkeep of the residence, doesn't pull their load in expenses, etc.

Well yes, that could certainly happen, if the necessary societal constraints aren't in place. Divorce has to become illegal or at least heavily shamed, or else you end up with either what the West has with a skyrocketing divorce rate + plummeting marriage rate (especially amongst their whites natives). This will prevent divorce. This, in conjunction with promoting tailored gender roles amongst society, and society will begin to produce attractive men and women that meet the base standards you talk about.

It's not as straightforward as I make it out to be here, but that's the general idea which will help prevent the specific problem you're talking about.

There is no real way of finding that out unless you, ya know, live together first.

It's not easy to get around this problem, but saying that there is "no real way" is far to extreme. For example, the parents of the two parties can preselect.

I think its fair to consider arranged marriages or making divorce illegal "to extreme". Much more so than cohabitation.

And why does this objection of "not fair" hold any weight? What exactly is the impact of this apparent rejection? I have outlined why a system like this would be good for society. You have only responded with a vague appeal to emotions.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 12:14:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 12:07:19 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:57:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:53:50 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:10:25 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
What is your opinion?

Cohabitation before marriage can be a society destroying mistake, if not correctly controlled. But it can be done, if given the right societal constructs that account for human's natural inclinations.

Couldn't it just as easily be institutionally devastating should it not happen? Imagine the divorce rates when you find out that the person you are living with never meets your standards of cleanliness, upkeep of the residence, doesn't pull their load in expenses, etc.

Well yes, that could certainly happen, if the necessary societal constraints aren't in place. Divorce has to become illegal or at least heavily shamed, or else you end up with either what the West has with a skyrocketing divorce rate + plummeting marriage rate (especially amongst their whites natives). This will prevent divorce. This, in conjunction with promoting tailored gender roles amongst society, and society will begin to produce attractive men and women that meet the base standards you talk about.

It's not as straightforward as I make it out to be here, but that's the general idea which will help prevent the specific problem you're talking about.

There is no real way of finding that out unless you, ya know, live together first.

It's not easy to get around this problem, but saying that there is "no real way" is far to extreme. For example, the parents of the two parties can preselect.

I think its fair to consider arranged marriages or making divorce illegal "to extreme". Much more so than cohabitation.

And why does this objection of "not fair" hold any weight? What exactly is the impact of this apparent rejection? I have outlined why a system like this would be good for society. You have only responded with a vague appeal to emotions.

1) outlawing divorce means you are stuck with an unfaithful spouse, should they be so.
2) Outlawing divorce means you are stuck with an addict of a spouse, should they be or turn into one.
3) Outlawing divorce means you are stuck with an abusive spouse, should they be or turn into one.
4) Outlawing divorce means you are stuck with a dead beat spouse should then turn into or be one.

A period of cohabitation gives insight into all of these.

re arranged marriages:
1) It then becomes a business arrangement built around some one else's best interests, not your own.
2) You have no choice in a matter that of all things in life should be completely in your hands.

This is just off the top of my head, if you want some better reasons for any of the above, give a few to marinate.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 12:37:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 12:14:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:07:19 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:57:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:53:50 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:10:25 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
What is your opinion?

Cohabitation before marriage can be a society destroying mistake, if not correctly controlled. But it can be done, if given the right societal constructs that account for human's natural inclinations.

Couldn't it just as easily be institutionally devastating should it not happen? Imagine the divorce rates when you find out that the person you are living with never meets your standards of cleanliness, upkeep of the residence, doesn't pull their load in expenses, etc.

Well yes, that could certainly happen, if the necessary societal constraints aren't in place. Divorce has to become illegal or at least heavily shamed, or else you end up with either what the West has with a skyrocketing divorce rate + plummeting marriage rate (especially amongst their whites natives). This will prevent divorce. This, in conjunction with promoting tailored gender roles amongst society, and society will begin to produce attractive men and women that meet the base standards you talk about.

It's not as straightforward as I make it out to be here, but that's the general idea which will help prevent the specific problem you're talking about.

There is no real way of finding that out unless you, ya know, live together first.

It's not easy to get around this problem, but saying that there is "no real way" is far to extreme. For example, the parents of the two parties can preselect.

I think its fair to consider arranged marriages or making divorce illegal "to extreme". Much more so than cohabitation.

And why does this objection of "not fair" hold any weight? What exactly is the impact of this apparent rejection? I have outlined why a system like this would be good for society. You have only responded with a vague appeal to emotions.

1) outlawing divorce means you are stuck with an unfaithful spouse, should they be so.

How about jail-time for cheating on your spouse?

2) Outlawing divorce means you are stuck with an addict of a spouse, should they be or turn into one.

This won't get through the pre-selection of the parents.

3) Outlawing divorce means you are stuck with an abusive spouse, should they be or turn into one.

Social conditioning should prevent this to a large degree. Besides, if the man/woman is obviously someone with a poor temper, the pre-selection should be able to detect it.

4) Outlawing divorce means you are stuck with a dead beat spouse should then turn into or be one.

Social conditioning AND biological drives should almost eliminate this entirely. Men AND Women WANT to become parents, as their biology compels them to do. Not doing their roles will have to go against both of those factors, which I think would be incredibly unlikely (so long as the roles align with biology).

The main response to all of these: social conditioning and pre-selection by the parents can erase a lot of these issues. Social conditioning, via gender roles and societal expectations, can result in people feeling obliged, prideful and/or pressured to do certain things. It's not perfect, but that's a much better answer than letting society degenerate into 'sleep around and see what you like'.


A period of cohabitation gives insight into all of these.

It also destroys women's ability to stay faithful, which leads to them sleeping around, and then men catching on and becoming players/MGTOWS, much like is going on right now in the Western world.


re arranged marriages:
1) It then becomes a business arrangement built around some one else's best interests, not your own.

Your own interest is that you almost guaranteed a stable marriage and children of your own. Your alternative will result in divorce rates skyrocketing, men becoming things like Japanese 'Grass Eaters' or MGTOWs, a select few men pumping+dumping the vast majority of women (i.e. PUAs, players etc.), marriages threatened greatly by women being allowed to leave for trash reason like 'I got bored' (which hurts children)...

There are so many things that go wrong when you liberate people to the extent that you are suggesting.

2) You have no choice in a matter that of all things in life should be completely in your hands.

I don't agree. When women are at the best age for marriage (15-25), they are often too ignorant to understand what is best for them, so they follow their emotions and chase men who have no interest in anything long-term and have elements of the dark-triad in their behaviour. Young men would chase women purely on their attractiveness without thinking about the long-term consequences of marriage, and therefore might marry too young without the required wealth. On the other hand, the parents will be a lot more experienced and able to see things objectively, without the clouding of lust/love.


This is just off the top of my head, if you want some better reasons for any of the above, give a few to marinate.

If you want.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 1:06:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

And why does this objection of "not fair" hold any weight? What exactly is the impact of this apparent rejection? I have outlined why a system like this would be good for society. You have only responded with a vague appeal to emotions.

1) outlawing divorce means you are stuck with an unfaithful spouse, should they be so.

How about jail-time for cheating on your spouse?

Why create more inmates? I am not interested in paying for someone that can't keep it in their pants. Keep divorce legal with punitive damages for unfaithful spouses. Win win.

2) Outlawing divorce means you are stuck with an addict of a spouse, should they be or turn into one.

This won't get through the pre-selection of the parents.

"or turn into one", and how would the parents know, are they cohabitating with the chosen before the marriage?

3) Outlawing divorce means you are stuck with an abusive spouse, should they be or turn into one.

Social conditioning should prevent this to a large degree. Besides, if the man/woman is obviously someone with a poor temper, the pre-selection should be able to detect it.

So one hopes. Cohabitation would detect it too, with no consequence.

4) Outlawing divorce means you are stuck with a dead beat spouse should then turn into or be one.

Social conditioning AND biological drives should almost eliminate this entirely. Men AND Women WANT to become parents, as their biology compels them to do. Not doing their roles will have to go against both of those factors, which I think would be incredibly unlikely (so long as the roles align with biology).

Rare instance, but what if they can't conceive? Impetus for what you state falls flat. Secondly, dead beat, as in just plain lazy. Cohabitation finds this out just as easily as pre selection with the experience of learning from the mistake.

The main response to all of these: social conditioning and pre-selection by the parents can erase a lot of these issues.

Which mean you learn nothing about yourself through the dating process.

Social conditioning, via gender roles and societal expectations, can result in people feeling obliged, prideful and/or pressured to do certain things. It's not perfect, but that's a much better answer than letting society degenerate into 'sleep around and see what you like'.

Cohabitation isn't sleeping around. Cohabitation is committing to living with one another for purposes of establishing further compatibility during the courtship. Follow up, social consequence is probably worst example one can give for forcing complicity, "negative reinforcement" causes more problems than it solves.


A period of cohabitation gives insight into all of these.

It also destroys women's ability to stay faithful,

.... are women really that weak? No, seriously, how does living with some destroy an ability to stay faithful.

which leads to them sleeping around, and then men catching on and becoming players/MGTOWS, much like is going on right now in the Western world.

Cohabitation, that being the act of living with some one, causes men to go their own way, women to hold no ability over their sexual impulses, and PUAs to NOT be dismissed as the obvious canards they are? Please, tell me how this occurs.


re arranged marriages:
1) It then becomes a business arrangement built around some one else's best interests, not your own.

Your own interest is that you almost guaranteed a stable marriage and children of your own.

That is in no way guaranteed. Pre selection just means the chosen fooled a different selector than the intended mate.

Your alternative will result in divorce rates skyrocketing, men becoming things like Japanese 'Grass Eaters' or MGTOWs, a select few men pumping+dumping the vast majority of women (i.e. PUAs, players etc.)

This is asserted, not proven. If anything, cohabitation would immediately recognize these for what they are before marriage is accepted and further consequence which might be irrevocable occurs.

marriages threatened greatly by women being allowed to leave for trash reason like 'I got bored' (which hurts children)...

... so? Trash reason or not, if that is what happens, that is what happens. Trying to force a marriage to stay together in which no points of commonality are found (by living together...) it just means people have done a POOR job of knowing what they want in a mate, or want from themselves.

There are so many things that go wrong when you liberate people to the extent that you are suggesting.

That being that people live together for a time before putting a ring on it. How many PUAs and MGTOWs want a live in piece?

2) You have no choice in a matter that of all things in life should be completely in your hands.

I don't agree. When women are at the best age for marriage (15-25), they are often too ignorant to understand what is best for them, so they follow their emotions and chase men who have no interest in anything long-term and have elements of the dark-triad in their behaviour.

So smarten the eff up? Make better life decisions rather than have some one else make them for you!

Young men would chase women purely on their attractiveness without thinking about the long-term consequences of marriage, and therefore might marry too young without the required wealth.

See previous. Dating in general gives you insight into yourself, and into what you want out of a relationship.

On the other hand, the parents will be a lot more experienced and able to see things objectively, without the clouding of lust/love.

And there by impart just as much lack of accountability in all facets of the relationship. Now rather than look to themselves for the solution, "this wasn't my decision, why should I be held responsible for it" is the immediate and valid out.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 2:15:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 1:06:13 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

How about jail-time for cheating on your spouse?

Why create more inmates? I am not interested in paying for someone that can't keep it in their pants. Keep divorce legal with punitive damages for unfaithful spouses. Win win.

Sure, as long as the punishment is enough to deter most.


2) Outlawing divorce means you are stuck with an addict of a spouse, should they be or turn into one.

This won't get through the pre-selection of the parents.

"or turn into one", and how would the parents know, are they cohabitating with the chosen before the marriage?

Well you couldn't ever really know, even when you cohabitate pre-marriage -- this is a negative for both sides.

The parents should meet the person multiple times.



Social conditioning should prevent this to a large degree. Besides, if the man/woman is obviously someone with a poor temper, the pre-selection should be able to detect it.

So one hopes. Cohabitation would detect it too, with no consequence.

Are you serious? Why on Earth do you think we're having the conversation? You can't just assert that in the middle of the debate when the debate is about that.



Social conditioning AND biological drives should almost eliminate this entirely. Men AND Women WANT to become parents, as their biology compels them to do. Not doing their roles will have to go against both of those factors, which I think would be incredibly unlikely (so long as the roles align with biology).

Rare instance, but what if they can't conceive? Impetus for what you state falls flat.

How do you know they can't conceive? Give them 3 months of marriage. If they don't have a child, whether they can conceive or not doesn't matter because the state should disband the marriage regardless.

Secondly, dead beat, as in just plain lazy. Cohabitation finds this out just as easily as pre selection with the experience of learning from the mistake.

Well if that is the case, then the negatives of cohab before marriage should make pre-selection the preferred method, in my argument.


The main response to all of these: social conditioning and pre-selection by the parents can erase a lot of these issues.

Which mean you learn nothing about yourself through the dating process.

You can learn about yourself in a variety of other ways that do not have such negative consequences.


Social conditioning, via gender roles and societal expectations, can result in people feeling obliged, prideful and/or pressured to do certain things. It's not perfect, but that's a much better answer than letting society degenerate into 'sleep around and see what you like'.

Cohabitation isn't sleeping around.

Please. People living together for years have absolutely no sex whatsoever?

Cohabitation is committing to living with one another for purposes of establishing further compatibility during the courtship.

Which is time-consuming and the parties involved often do not know what is best for them. Arranged marriages bypass both these problems.

Follow up, social consequence is probably worst example one can give for forcing complicity, "negative reinforcement" causes more problems than it solves.

Bare assertion.



It also destroys women's ability to stay faithful,

.... are women really that weak?

It's not weak; it's biological function. Much like it would be stupid to say 'oh you have to breathe or else you die? That's weak!'

No, seriously, how does living with some destroy an ability to stay faithful.

Studies have shown that as the number of partners for a women increase, her ability to stay faithful decreases.


which leads to them sleeping around, and then men catching on and becoming players/MGTOWS, much like is going on right now in the Western world.

Cohabitation, that being the act of living with some one, causes men to go their own way, women to hold no ability over their sexual impulses, and PUAs to NOT be dismissed as the obvious canards they are? Please, tell me how this occurs.

It gives women the license to sleep around, which triggers a chain of events that cause interactions between the sexes to change. It's pretty damn complicated and I can't be bothered typing 20k worth of characters to detail every stage involved, but that's the very basic answer.




Your own interest is that you almost guaranteed a stable marriage and children of your own.

That is in no way guaranteed. Pre selection just means the chosen fooled a different selector than the intended mate.

It's a biological imperative; it's going to be true for the vast majority.


Your alternative will result in divorce rates skyrocketing, men becoming things like Japanese 'Grass Eaters' or MGTOWs, a select few men pumping+dumping the vast majority of women (i.e. PUAs, players etc.)

This is asserted, not proven. If anything, cohabitation would immediately recognize these for what they are before marriage is accepted and further consequence which might be irrevocable occurs.

Can you please explain these phenomena then?


marriages threatened greatly by women being allowed to leave for trash reason like 'I got bored' (which hurts children)...

... so? Trash reason or not, if that is what happens, that is what happens.

This is what causes societies to implode. This is what allows women to give into hypergamy and divorce her husband the moment she gets a bit bored, which obliterates marriage. One marriage is a joke with no-fault divorce laws and insane payouts, women will divorce slightly boring husbands at the expense of society's best child-rearing mechanism.

Trying to force a marriage to stay together in which no points of commonality are found (by living together...) it just means people have done a POOR job of knowing what they want in a mate, or want from themselves.

Ergh. I'm bored with this now. You take humans as if they have no evolutionary pre-conditions. You have no conception of human nature, specifically the effects feelings have on decisions. Go and read evolutionary psychology, please. Not going to read anymore of this. You can respond if you want, but I won't read it. Bye for now.


There are so many things that go wrong when you liberate people to the extent that you are suggesting.

That being that people live together for a time before putting a ring on it. How many PUAs and MGTOWs want a live in piece?



I don't agree. When women are at the best age for marriage (15-25), they are often too ignorant to understand what is best for them, so they follow their emotions and chase men who have no interest in anything long-term and have elements of the dark-triad in their behaviour.

So smarten the eff up? Make better life decisions rather than have some one else make them for you!


Young men would chase women purely on their attractiveness without thinking about the long-term consequences of marriage, and therefore might marry too young without the required wealth.

See previous. Dating in general gives you insight into yourself, and into what you want out of a relationship.

On the other hand, the parents will be a lot more experienced and able to see things objectively, without the clouding of lust/love.

And there by impart just as much lack of accountability in all facets of the relationship. Now rather than look to themselves for the solution, "this wasn't my decision, why should I be held responsible for it" is the immediate and valid out.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 2:46:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 2:39:02 AM, Nivek wrote:
Marriage is a declining institution, you live with an official label that forces you to act in accordance with society's norms or more specifically, your reputation as a couple. Its similar to a binding contract, forcing each spouse for a commitment they may not like. Cohabitation takes away that label making everyone else at ease with whatever the hell they wanna do in life.

Why bother with a fixed institution when you can move around fluidly with other methods. Besides, The extended family is in decline, the all powerful nuclear family have possessiveness issues. At least, that's how I see anyway.

It's fine for just the partners, but it is not fair on any children that are born into a cohabiting family. Cohabiting families are far more likely to break up than marriages, and we know that break-ups negatively affect children .
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 2:52:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

How about jail-time for cheating on your spouse?

Why create more inmates? I am not interested in paying for someone that can't keep it in their pants. Keep divorce legal with punitive damages for unfaithful spouses. Win win.

Sure, as long as the punishment is enough to deter most.


2) Outlawing divorce means you are stuck with an addict of a spouse, should they be or turn into one.


"or turn into one", and how would the parents know, are they cohabitating with the chosen before the marriage?

Well you couldn't ever really know, even when you cohabitate pre-marriage -- this is a negative for both sides.

But the cohabitator can find it out before accepting marriage, and leave.

Social conditioning should prevent this to a large degree. Besides, if the man/woman is obviously someone with a poor temper, the pre-selection should be able to detect it.

So one hopes. Cohabitation would detect it too, with no consequence.

Are you serious? Why on Earth do you think we're having the conversation? You can't just assert that in the middle of the debate when the debate is about that.

Because there isn't! "breaking up" and "moving out" is no consequence beyond the heartbreak.



Social conditioning AND biological drives should almost eliminate this entirely. Men AND Women WANT to become parents, as their biology compels them to do. Not doing their roles will have to go against both of those factors, which I think would be incredibly unlikely (so long as the roles align with biology).



Secondly, dead beat, as in just plain lazy. Cohabitation finds this out just as easily as pre selection with the experience of learning from the mistake.

Well if that is the case, then the negatives of cohab before marriage should make pre-selection the preferred method, in my argument.

My point is that lying during an interview is not difficult.


The main response to all of these: social conditioning and pre-selection by the parents can erase a lot of these issues.

Which mean you learn nothing about yourself through the dating process.

You can learn about yourself in a variety of other ways that do not have such negative consequences.

"Dating" and "living together" pale as a negative compared to being stuck in a marriage with some one you don't want, on any level.


Social conditioning, via gender roles and societal expectations, can result in people feeling obliged, prideful and/or pressured to do certain things. It's not perfect, but that's a much better answer than letting society degenerate into 'sleep around and see what you like'.

Cohabitation isn't sleeping around.

Please. People living together for years have absolutely no sex whatsoever?

Cohabitation is committing to living with one another for purposes of establishing further compatibility during the courtship. That is not sleeping around.

Which is time-consuming and the parties involved often do not know what is best for them. Arranged marriages bypass both these problems.

I am not sure why you believe a parent will know their progeny's desires 20 years later, much less justify forcing something else.


Bare assertion. (negative reinforcement)
http://psychology.about.com...

It also destroys women's ability to stay faithful,

.... are women really that weak?

It's not weak; it's biological function. Much like it would be stupid to say 'oh you have to breathe or else you die? That's weak!'

So women MUST have sex with multiple people to stay alive?

No, seriously, how does living with some destroy an ability to stay faithful.

Studies have shown that as the number of partners for a women increase, her ability to stay faithful decreases.


Cohabitation, that being the act of living with some one, causes men to go their own way, women to hold no ability over their sexual impulses, and PUAs to NOT be dismissed as the obvious canards they are? Please, tell me how this occurs.

It gives women the license to sleep around.

No, it doesn't. I have no desire to cohabitate for further courtship with a woman that sleeps around. If anything, the situation implies monogamy.

Your own interest is that you almost guaranteed a stable marriage and children of your own.

That is in no way guaranteed. Pre selection just means the chosen fooled a different selector than the intended mate.

It's a biological imperative; it's going to be true for the vast majority.

Extend previous.


Your alternative will result in divorce rates skyrocketing, men becoming things like Japanese 'Grass Eaters' or MGTOWs, a select few men pumping+dumping the vast majority of women (i.e. PUAs, players etc.)

This is asserted, not proven. If anything, cohabitation would immediately recognize these for what they are before marriage is accepted and further consequence which might be irrevocable occurs.

Can you please explain these phenomena then?

People not being responsible for their actions. People making poor decisions without regard to their own future.


marriages threatened greatly by women being allowed to leave for trash reason like 'I got bored' (which hurts children)...

... so? Trash reason or not, if that is what happens, that is what happens.

This is what causes societies to implode. This is what allows women to give into hypergamy and divorce her husband the moment she gets a bit bored, which obliterates marriage. One marriage is a joke with no-fault divorce laws and insane payouts, women will divorce slightly boring husbands at the expense of society's best child-rearing mechanism.

Yes. People acting irresponsibly does that.

Trying to force a marriage to stay together in which no points of commonality are found (by living together...) it just means people have done a POOR job of knowing what they want in a mate, or want from themselves.

Ergh. I'm bored with this now. You take humans as if they have no evolutionary pre-conditions. You have no conception of human nature, specifically the effects feelings have on decisions. Go and read evolutionary psychology, please. Not going to read anymore of this. You can respond if you want, but I won't read it. Bye for now.

"by women being allowed to leave for trash reason like 'I got bored' "....

I think we might have found the root of the problem. It doesn't appear to be cohabitation.

Were this a marriage under your set of principles, you would be jailed, or shamed, or what have not.

By my set of principles, its just a conversation you would prefer not to continue. ;) No consequences for leaving it, and no further harm done. Ta.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Nivek
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 3:25:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 2:46:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
It's fine for just the partners, but it is not fair on any children that are born into a cohabiting family. Cohabiting families are far more likely to break up than marriages, and we know that break-ups negatively affect children .

I see though I
Disagree, divorce have quadrupled over the last decade since there is less and less stigma attached to it. Marriage is likely to break up the same way cohabitation is, besides we are taught to share domestic work between spouses since everyone hates the traditional breadwinner role. The problem with that is that statistics are starting to show that those who share have the highest chances of separating. Marriage is considered as an economic label, not a stigmatized one. Both have equal chances of breaking up.
RyryMase
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 3:46:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I remember there was a study on this that I learned about in my human sexuality class. I can't remember it to cite it but I remember the outcome. Cohabitation before marriage has no benefit and is actually more likely to lead to divorce. Has nothing to do with sex. It's just what happens
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 5:00:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 3:25:17 AM, Nivek wrote:
At 4/16/2015 2:46:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
It's fine for just the partners, but it is not fair on any children that are born into a cohabiting family. Cohabiting families are far more likely to break up than marriages, and we know that break-ups negatively affect children .

I see though I
Disagree, divorce have quadrupled over the last decade since there is less and less stigma attached to it. Marriage is likely to break up the same way cohabitation is, besides we are taught to share domestic work between spouses since everyone hates the traditional breadwinner role. The problem with that is that statistics are starting to show that those who share have the highest chances of separating. Marriage is considered as an economic label, not a stigmatized one. Both have equal chances of breaking up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Nivek
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 8:22:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 10:07:46 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
You think he looks like Thicke? :O :O :O
He sounds like Thicke everytime he speaks so lol

No, no, please don't get me wrong, I don't think he's representative of all cohabitants at all. I meant to address your arguement about doing away with fixed institutions. I don't disagree that loyalty is the issue, but I see it this way: true, marriage doesn't guarantee loyalty, but the lack thereof would certainly undermine it. Marriage is what we call a 'rite' in Confucian thought (it probably differs from the Western idea of a rite). In Confucianism, rites are treated as 'mechanisms' that encourage morality and ethics. Sure, there are people who follow rites but do not adhere to the moral values involved, but to do away with rites would require much more self-control on people's part that makes morality harder to achieve without a sufficient level of self-cultivation.

I'm wholly ignorant of Confucianism, so hopefully you'll pardon my ignorance for a moment. I'll put it aside for now and just focus on the western side. If this societal norm was applied under Confucianism then you can definitely be sure that there is a basis for morality. Other religions, however, are completely different. Undergoing membership within a specific church of a specific religion does not guarantee religiosity whatsoever. There's like 6-9% overall church attendance despite a membership in the 60% range. So claiming oneself as part of a religion isn't the same as claiming oneself to be religious by attaching innumerable amount of values to marriage.

When you answer a social survey, you don't say you're religious simply because you answered 'Yes, I'm a theist' . Defining religiosity within a marriage framework goes way deeper than that

There are differing views of rites in Confucianism - Xunzi was a staunch advocate of rites and thinks it's the basis of everything, while Mencius placed less emphasis - but all agree that rites are necessary for the encouragement of morality.

Well I need to do more reading. Wow, You INTPs and INTJs are racing through my ENTP mind. Goodness me.
Nivek
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 8:27:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 5:00:41 AM, Philocat wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

I lost interest when the article mentioned 'British Household Panel Survey'. Their excessive use of soft science methodology is annoying. That includes riling a case based on what 'Professor X says because he said it, nevermind his functionalist bias'.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 9:31:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 3:46:00 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm wondering what people on DDO think about this. I've read the opinions questions on the matter but I'm not convinced either way.

Some use arguments against premarital sex to refute this point. However, I don't think that's necessarily valid because cohabitation doesn't always lead to sex. If the two people sleep in separate beds, I think it may be morally acceptable even if they're in the same apartment.

Some say the lack of commitment, but I'm excluding cohabitation without the intention of marriage. Assuming that they really do intend to marry after cohabitation, would that still make cohabitation bad?

On the other side of the argument, most argue it's important to 'test drive' the marriage before it actually happens. Is this really so important that the regular customs of living together after marriage need not be observed? In the past, many if not most people didn't even know their partner until the day they got married. In the cases where they do know their future spouse before marriage, they didn't necessarily know each other well. However, there are many famous couples known for sticking together, even during severe hardships throughout history. It may seem that with dating, people already get to know each other very well before marriage.

What is your opinion?

This might not be a popular opinion, but I think it is irrational, unintelligent, and unethical not to live together and to have regular sex before marriage. I do not think a couple can come even close to determining compatibility without those two things, and if you only find out that you're completely incompatible in these two very important ways after marriage, then you're creating a problem for your families as well. And if you already have kids, well that's much worse. Figure it out on your own before getting others involved, and know what you're getting into before getting married.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 10:03:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 8:22:39 AM, Nivek wrote:
At 4/13/2015 10:07:46 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
You think he looks like Thicke? :O :O :O
He sounds like Thicke everytime he speaks so lol

No, no, please don't get me wrong, I don't think he's representative of all cohabitants at all. I meant to address your arguement about doing away with fixed institutions. I don't disagree that loyalty is the issue, but I see it this way: true, marriage doesn't guarantee loyalty, but the lack thereof would certainly undermine it. Marriage is what we call a 'rite' in Confucian thought (it probably differs from the Western idea of a rite). In Confucianism, rites are treated as 'mechanisms' that encourage morality and ethics. Sure, there are people who follow rites but do not adhere to the moral values involved, but to do away with rites would require much more self-control on people's part that makes morality harder to achieve without a sufficient level of self-cultivation.

I'm wholly ignorant of Confucianism, so hopefully you'll pardon my ignorance for a moment. I'll put it aside for now and just focus on the western side. If this societal norm was applied under Confucianism then you can definitely be sure that there is a basis for morality. Other religions, however, are completely different. Undergoing membership within a specific church of a specific religion does not guarantee religiosity whatsoever. There's like 6-9% overall church attendance despite a membership in the 60% range. So claiming oneself as part of a religion isn't the same as claiming oneself to be religious by attaching innumerable amount of values to marriage.
I see where you're coming from, but I feel the urge to make a clarification here: Confucianism isn't a religion any more than Kantian deontology or Keynesian economics are. I was explaining my position on marriage with Confucian ethics, for the same reason that some people would analyse ethics-related issues through the lens of consequentialism, deontology or virtue ethics. (I also simplified Confucian thought somehow, for some ideas are hard to translate into English; I'm sure a Confucian proficient at translation would do a much better job at explaining the concept of rites.)

Please correct me if I misinterpreted your post, but I assume that you're making an analogy: Just as people who self-identify as religion don't necessarily practise their religion, people who are married do not necessarily recognise the implication that they have to be faithful. While that is largely true, do consider this: Someone who goes to church (which is a rite) is much more likely to accept the moral values in which his/her religion believes. Of course, not everyone who goes to church on Sunday will put Christian values to practise; they can be simply lip-service Christians. However, going to church does increase their likelihood of following Christian doctrine, just as keeping marriage as an institution increases their likelihood of doing what married couples are supposed to do: Stay loyal to and respectful of each other, and Book of Rites 44.1:

'The ceremony of marriage was intended to be a bond of love between two (families of different) surnames, with a view, in its retrospective character, to secure the services in the ancestral temple, and in its prospective character, to secure the continuance of the family line.'

There's another reason I can think of why marriage should be kept, but it involves the concept of rectification of names, which is even harder for me to explain in English.

When you answer a social survey, you don't say you're religious simply because you answered 'Yes, I'm a theist' . Defining religiosity within a marriage framework goes way deeper than that

There are differing views of rites in Confucianism - Xunzi was a staunch advocate of rites and thinks it's the basis of everything, while Mencius placed less emphasis - but all agree that rites are necessary for the encouragement of morality.

Well I need to do more reading. Wow, You INTPs and INTJs are racing through my ENTP mind. Goodness me.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...