Should "living in sin" be illegal?

[Rob Imes]

There are seven states where it is illegal for an unmarried couple to live together. The states are Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia. The ACLU is challenging North Carolina's law against cohabitation, which was passed in 1805. Although such laws are rarely enforced these days, "at least 36 people have been charged in North Carolina since 1997, with seven convicted," according to a recent newspaper article (http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0505/12/A06-179352.htm). "Violators are subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and a sentence of up to 60 days in jail."

Over the weekend, The Detroit News held a survey (http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0505/21/D08-188392.htm) asking readers whether Michigan's anti-cohabitation law should be struck down. Most of those who responded (59%) favored the law against cohabitation, while 41% wanted the law done away with. One reader commented, "Cohabiters, gay marriage devotees, unwed mothers and fathers are all tearing the concept of marriage apart and ultimately destroying the country."

What do you think? If it was proven that married couples are more likely to be a positive influence on society, shouldn't government encourage it?

[phoenixrising]

I think married people are doing a fine job of ruining the country, I certainly won't take all of the credit. The worst thing that's happening to marriage these days isn't gays or me and my boyfriend shacking up...it's that no one has to go into it for good.

And maybe some of those divorces wouldnt happen if people would have done the responsible thing and thought to see if they could actually live together first. I don't care if you don't believe in sex before marriage or not...I think it's retarded to get married if you've never lived with the person. So many people discover how poorly they mesh when they are forced to live in an apartment together, fighintg over money, time spent togeter and house chores.

[Pepsigirl]

It's the religious fanatics blurring the line between church & state and forcing their values on everyone else that are tearing this country apart. Living in sin is a religious thing, and this law should've been lifted a long time ago.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

I think it's retarded to get married if you've never lived with the person. So many people discover how poorly they mesh when they are forced to live in an apartment together, fighintg over money, time spent togeter and house chores.

While I agree with you that I think couples should live together before saying "I do," wasn't there some study a few years back that said couples that live together before marriage aren't any more likely, and in fact are less likely, to stay together than couples that don't? I always thought that was an interesting study, because "common sense," for what that's worth, seems to dictate the opposite result.

[Mike Smash!]

I agree, this is stupid of a violation of people's basic right to live with whomever they wish.

This "it's tearing the country apart" garbage is the exact same thing they said about interracial marriage and ending segregation. It has no validity and the state of marriage has more to do with people getting married too young, using it as a means to fix their relationships or by the example of "Who Wants to Marry My Dad?" and "the Bachelor" and Britney Spears.

This is the standard excuse that intolerant people use to justify their uncomfortability with society. Blame it on gay people and unwed mothers.

It's not the job of the government to enforce any one family mold on all Americans.

[Wonder Bebs]

*takes a moment to thank God that she lives in Pennsylvania*

Honestly, most I have to worry about is my uncle giving me hell because I'd like to live with Nik first before we decide to go and get married. >/ It's not "living in sin." it's making an eductaed decision about your life and getting to really know the person you love. Seeing if you're ready for a commitment or not.

The sooner these neaderthals get that into their inbred heads, the better off the world will be.

[Mike Smash!]

Unless I'm wrong, this would also prohibit same sex couples from living together, because they cannot be married in any of those states.

Bastards.

[Deathstroke]

"Living in Sin" should not be illegal.

Stupid laws that are completely outdated and seemingly based on a religious sensibility rather than a secular one should be though.

[Sir Tim Drake]

This law is self-evidently ridiculous. Even if living together before marriage is bad for society (which is questionable), it still shouldn't be outlawed, because tyranny is also bad for society. People have a right to live with whoever they want to live with, and the potential benefits of banning cohabitation do not outweigh the cost of violating that right. Or to put it another way: It's possible (though unlikely) that cohabitation will contribute to the destruction of our society, but it's an absolute certainty that laws against cohabitation will contribute to the destruction of our liberty.

In the first article that Rob linked to, there's a quote that "We should have these laws because the law is a teacher. It teaches us what is right and wrong." That is not what the law is for. That is what schools and parents and churches are for. The law is there to protect our freedom, and to ensure that overzealous government bodies can't infringe on it.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Unless I'm wrong, this would also prohibit same sex couples from living together, because they cannot be married in any of those states.

Bastards.

And I wouldn't be surprised if same sex couples are targeted more than hetero couples for enforcement either.

[howyadoin]

Every week at CBR, I see yet another reason to be glad I live here, instead of in the U.S. of A.

Thanks, Rob. Now I've got another.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Every week at CBR, I see yet another reason to be glad I live here, instead of in the U.S. of A.

Thanks, Rob. Now I've got another.

Watch it, Canadian. Or we'll sick Bill O'Reilly on your ass.

You'll never be able to look at a falafel the same way again. You've been warned, Mister.

[spoon_jenkins]

First, let me point out that the Detroit News survey was not a scientific poll, but apparentally one of the those online check in the box things. I doubt it represents actually public opinion in Michigan - at least I hope not.

I think this law would be vulnerable to a legal challenge, since I believe to a large extent living with whom you wish to is protected as part of the right to privacy (something strict constructionists hate).

I think people across American should reject laws like this and other "red state values" because they're what's harming this country. Places like all those Southern red states are where poverty rates, teen pregnancy rates, divorce rates, etc. tend to be higher than they are nationally. I think if other states followed them, it would be a disaster.

A reason that not many people don't know about these laws is that they're not enforced. It's basically a waste of legislative time to appease a few nutcases. Then, if the government wants to harass someone, they can single them out for enforcement.

The government should protect people and look out for the public good rather than make silly judgments and restrictions on people's romantic relationships and rooming arrangements.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Reference to the concept "sin" as justification for social policy or law should be made illegal.

[phoenixrising]

Wouldn't these laws also apply to roommates?

[K'Nort]

That's what I was wondering. How would they ever be able to structure the law to apply specifically and solely to unmarried "couples"?

[Winslow]

Reference to the concept "sin" as justification for social policy or law should be made illegal.

The concept of sin is both vertical (towards God) and horizontal (in person to person relationships - which law is generally based on) - but, yeah, I generally agree.

I didn't live with my wife, nor did we have sex before marriage, and we've been married for 14 years and still going strong.

I really don't think maturity - which is probably one of the best predictors of the success of a marriage, can be measured by whether or not a couple lived together. IN other words, idiots live together, but so do caring people.

And yeah, the law seems pretty outdated. There was a time when the offspring from a live-in couple (pre-birth control days) would create problems for the state. We no longer live in such times.

[MushMouth]

What do you think? If it was proven that married couples are more likely to be a positive influence on society, shouldn't government encourage it?

Thats a nice way of putting it - "Encouraging."

Criminilizing a victimless act committed between consenting adults on the grounds that some people find it to offend their religious sensibilities is an egregious violation of the government's legitimate use of authority.

[Grant]

Wouldn't these laws also apply to roommates?

That's what I'm wondering. I always lived with at least one person all my life. I never had a place to myself (which would be nice). With rent in New York I'll probably have a roommate well into my early thirties.

[Wu Hsi Wu]

Well, I see now that I really do live in LaLa Land (the west coast). Because I genuinly believed that things like living together and Gays and unwed mothers, etc. had been pretty much accepted since the 70's. It's like we are going back in time. For the past 5 or 6 years, I have awoke to some pretty crazy shit. I can't believe we live in the 2000's. Shouldn't we all be teleporting or something? I can't believe that we have less freedom and more laws than we did 30 years ago. How F'n insane is that? :( :( :( :mad:

[spoon_jenkins]

Wouldn't these laws also apply to roommates?
Could be. Maybe there's a provision based on what room the people sleep in (since they're already putting their noses in people's homes).

[Joe Grendel]

If living in sin is made illegal, can we also outlaw ugly people having children? I mean, if we're going down this road, we might as well use the slippery slope for some modest good along the way.

[Naldo]

There's nothing sinful about love.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

If living in sin is made illegal, can we also outlaw ugly people having children? I mean, if we're going down this road, we might as well use the slippery slope for some modest good along the way.

OK, let's go with that feeling: no belly-revealing shirts or low-rider pants for fat chicks.

Garden gnomes are strictly verbotten.

No wife-beater shirts for, well, anybody.

No parking in the front lawn. Ever.

Big fat guys are not allowed to walk around without a shirt on, and no fair wearing one that's three sizes too small.

Mow your damn lawn once in awhile.

Baseball caps must be worn with the bill facing forward.

If you watch American Idol, it's OK for the police to enter at any time and beat you with a nightstick.

Young men must wear pants that are the appropriate size for their age/build/weight.

Jehovah's witnesses who knock on your door are subject to tasering without notice. Same for those damn kids who sell their fricking candy bars for $5 a pop for some imaginary summer camp.

And, lastly, while I'm standing in my yard in my big old shorts, black socks and sandles, drinking a Schlitz and yelling at the neighbor kids to stay off my damn lawn . . . oh God. I've turned into my DAD!!! :eek:

[Matt]

I like the way you think.

Ever thought about running for President?

[west3man]

There are seven states where it is illegal for an unmarried couple to live together. The states are Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia. The ACLU is challenging North Carolina's law against cohabitation, which was passed in 1805. Although such laws are rarely enforced these days, "at least 36 people have been charged in North Carolina since 1997, with seven convicted," according to a recent newspaper article (http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0505/12/A06-179352.htm). "Violators are subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and a sentence of up to 60 days in jail."

Over the weekend, The Detroit News held a survey (http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0505/21/D08-188392.htm) asking readers whether Michigan's anti-cohabitation law should be struck down. Most of those who responded (59%) favored the law against cohabitation, while 41% wanted the law done away with. One reader commented, "Cohabiters, gay marriage devotees, unwed mothers and fathers are all tearing the concept of marriage apart and ultimately destroying the country."

What do you think? If it was proven that married couples are more likely to be a positive influence on society, shouldn't government encourage it?Hella more interesting than I expected.

Just goes to show ol' boy was right about reading the first post and not just the title.

I live in Florida, btw, and am "living in sin." I dare a #@$^# to try me. One guess where I stand on the issue.

[Petersen]

If it was proven that married couples are more likely to be a positive influence on society, shouldn't government encourage it?

If that were true (hypothetical situation) encouraging it is different from makign the opposite illegal.

There are several Jim Crowe style laws that are aimed at demonizing
un-biblical behavior. There are also laws agains sodomy & oral sex. There is no corrilation between socity being upheaved and anal sex, or crime and oral sex. (unless you hold a religious view that tells you that will upheave society, in which case stand in line with allllll the other folks who's religions disagree with what society is up to or even what your religion is up to)

[Michael P]

I still don't get where this idea of marriage being a crucial element of America came from. It's nowhere in the Constitution, Declaration, or any of the other founding documents. No federal law mentions it, to my knowledge. Leaders throughout history, from the Founding Fathers to legislators to at least one President, have been unmarried. That it exists within American society is an irrefutable fact, but where is it written that without it, the nation falls apart?

[Joe Grendel]

There's nothing sinful about love.
You clearly haven't been doing it right.

[Joe Grendel]

I like the way you think.

Ever thought about running for President?
Getting my ass whipped by Bob Dole back stage, and then having him pour a bottle of Viagra pills over me once was enough, thank you.

[phoenixrising]

I draw the lines at garden gnomes. Dammit, I love mine!

[Pól Rua]

eerily enough, I've seen something similar to this. Some friends of mine were sharing a place. One was unemployed and working casual and the other was on study allowance.
Essentially, the welfare guys kept coming around at all hours of the day and night to prove that these two were having sex, because if people are cohabiting, as opposed to just living in a share-house environment, their can be cut.
So essentially, the government was employing people to make sure that these two weren't shagging.
I mean, sure he was a boy and she was a girl... but they WERE both gay.

daft.

[Joe Grendel]

I mean, sure he was a boy and she was a girl... but they WERE both gay.

daft.
You clearly haven't seen enough sitcoms!

[Spike-X]

eerily enough, I've seen something similar to this. Some friends of mine were sharing a place. One was unemployed and working casual and the other was on study allowance.
Essentially, the welfare guys kept coming around at all hours of the day and night to prove that these two were having sex, because if people are cohabiting, as opposed to just living in a share-house environment, their can be cut.
So essentially, the government was employing people to make sure that these two weren't shagging.
I mean, sure he was a boy and she was a girl... but they WERE both gay.

daft.
Note to Centrelink - mind your own f'n business.

That was one thing that really pissed me off when I was on the dole. Rent costs the same whether two people living in a house are having sex or not. The phone doesn't get any cheaper, nor is there a "wild shagging" discount on the gas or electricity. So why the hell do they think that two people sharing a place need less money if they happen to be fucking each other?

[Spike-X]

Oh, and to answer the question -

Should "living in sin" be illegal?

Of course not. What a stupid question.

[Tages]

I think certain people need to get it through their heads that "sin" and "crime" are different concepts. A sin may be offensive against god, it may be spiritually unhealthy or self-destructive, but something like this fails the litmus test of what should be considered criminal. Namely:

1. Is it force?
2. Is it fraud?

I don't approve of shacking up. Shacking up is, however, several orders of magnitude less offensive than people willing to use the force of the law to make others live like they want them to live. All of these laws ought to be repealed.

[Alex]

All of these laws ought to be repealed.
Word.
People can go on and on about how they think its bad, but the government shouldn't be making it illegal because people think its bad.
And by the way, 59% of people polled supported this? I NEVER meet these people.

[SPAfreak]

No parking in the front lawn. Ever.

Check into it. I think that that is a law in Madison.

One that is conveniently forgotten on football Saturdays of course.

[Typo Lad]

Sigh.

You know what?

This is just... dumb.

Everyone's said good reasons. Even I, Mr. Jewy McJewperson, shared an apartment with Suzannah before we got married. We didn't sleep there together (well, except a couple of times, but seperate rooms, I promise!), but it let us see how we could handle each other's habits.

It's just common sense.

[Rabid Trekkie]

How old is this law? Is it like one of those from the 50's that you don't really hear about until you piss off your neighbor and they call the police? If so that may be why it hasn't been done away with yet, not enough people know about it.

And I agree with what Tages said.

[Michael P]

That was one thing that really pissed me off when I was on the dole. Rent costs the same whether two people living in a house are having sex or not. The phone doesn't get any cheaper, nor is there a "wild shagging" discount on the gas or electricity.
It'd be cool if there were, though. I'd totally support a company that did that.

[HomerJay]

Seeing that I'm a firm believer in the idea that a couple needs to live together for at least one year before getting married, I think this law is totally asinine.
My wife and I lived together for 2 whole years before getting married and things worked out just peachy. My sister did NOT live with her husband before and got divorced within 2 years after they really got to know each other.

I would think that this law would open things up for a lot of "Three's Company" type situations...

[Indy24LA]

I think "Living in Sin" should definitely be made illegal!!!!!! I didn't like the song when it first came out and still hate it now. It's one of Bon Jovi's weakest tunes and thanks for getting it stuck in my head now :mad: .

Anyway, to the real question, well I lived in sin (I'm sorry, who gets to decide what's a sin and what's not for every single individual in the US of A?) in NC for 2 years and totally got away with it, just my way of stickin' it to the Man. I'm of the opinion that if you're an adult, you should always have a choice. Live together first then get married, don't live together first and get married, get married and don't live together....whatever! But I'm of the Pepsi Generation, so choice is important to me.

[Guapo Méndez]

Every week at CBR, I see yet another reason to be glad I live here, instead of in the U.S. of A.

Thanks, Rob. Now I've got another.

Heh. You said it, man.
Living in sin here is frowned upon by the Old Ladies of the Eternal Candle, but it sure as hell isnt' illegal.

[Andy S.]

While I agree with you that I think couples should live together before saying "I do," wasn't there some study a few years back that said couples that live together before marriage aren't any more likely, and in fact are less likely, to stay together than couples that don't? I always thought that was an interesting study, because "common sense," for what that's worth, seems to dictate the opposite result.


There is research to back this up. I was a Human Development & Family Studies major in college, and we dealt with alot of issues like this. Increased cohabitation, changing of family "norms", cultural acceptance of divorce-that sort of thing. If i'm not mistaken, i think there are some statistics out there that suggest only 50% of cohabitating couples end up getting married. Reasons for this aren't clear.

Oh, and the NC cohabitation law is a joke. I've known several people who live with their boyfriend/girlfriend, and I've never heard of anyone getting arrested for it.

[Tom]

Since presumably people try cohabitation first in order to see if marriage is a possibility, wouldn't it stand to reason that cohabitating couples would have a higher split rate simply because the process on some level is meant to weed out unworthy spouses?

[west3man]

Since presumably people try cohabitation first in order to see if marriage is a possibility, wouldn't it stand to reason that cohabitating couples would have a higher split rate simply because the process on some level is meant to weed out unworthy spouses?
Makes sense to me. (which may hurt your case more than it helps it :p )

[Paul McEnery]

There is research to back this up. I was a Human Development & Family Studies major in college, and we dealt with alot of issues like this. Increased cohabitation, changing of family "norms", cultural acceptance of divorce-that sort of thing. If i'm not mistaken, i think there are some statistics out there that suggest only 50% of cohabitating couples end up getting married. Reasons for this aren't clear.

Hell, I should think a large proportion just don't believe in getting married. I've got a couple of friends who chose to write up contracts rather than go through the rigmarole because they thought it was stupid and coercive.

And another large proportion who just don't see the need. You take a tax hit, the wedding party costs thousands of dollars, and if you're not having kids, buying a house, or needing a green card, what's the point?

And then there's still more who are in "biding my time" relationships, knowing damn well it's not really what you want, but it's the best you can get at the moment, and you can trim the rent.

Now me, OTOH, I haven't lived with a lover since I moved out from the wife, and I don't think I would unless I meant to make a go of it. Then again, at 43, it's hard to get a good roommate situation, so I'm damned if I'm moving out until I'm good and ready to make a go of it.

[JerrBear81]

Word.
People can go on and on about how they think its bad, but the government shouldn't be making it illegal because people think its bad.
And by the way, 59% of people polled supported this? I NEVER meet these people.

It's cause they know how to shut up.

Seriously, these people you never meet know when to be quiet.

[Jared_Humpherys]

I just so happen to cohabitate with my fiance. We're getting married soon, but we'd been living together for a while before we got engaged. my Mormon grandmother doesn't like it, but I really don't care. The question is with this law: what about people who can't afford their own place, and are spurned by their family? I know of at least 3 people who have this problem; one of them is my soon-to-be wife. Luckily, it's never been an issue with me, as my folks' door has always been open to me. But if you're going to make a law against it, you DAMN well better make sure that EVERYONE affected has enough money to make it on their own first.

I feel pretty strongly about this, so I'll tell you what: If you are against cohabitation, pm me and I'll give you my address. Come over and visit me and tell it to my face, I dare you. I own three swords, five daggers, a morningstar, and a mace, and if you decide to peddle that B.S. at my doorstep, I will hit you. And you know what, I may even bring over a few of my friends who also cohabitate.

[Rabid Trekkie]

I just so happen to cohabitate with my fiance. We're getting married soon, but we'd been living together for a while before we got engaged. my Mormon grandmother doesn't like it, but I really don't care. The question is with this law: what about people who can't afford their own place, and are spurned by their family? I know of at least 3 people who have this problem; one of them is my soon-to-be wife. Luckily, it's never been an issue with me, as my folks' door has always been open to me. But if you're going to make a law against it, you DAMN well better make sure that EVERYONE affected has enough money to make it on their own first.

I feel pretty strongly about this, so I'll tell you what: If you are against cohabitation, pm me and I'll give you my address. Come over and visit me and tell it to my face, I dare you. I own three swords, five daggers, a morningstar, and a mace, and if you decide to peddle that B.S. at my doorstep, I will hit you. And you know what, I may even bring over a few of my friends who also cohabitate.

Impressive, but I've got a gun so there! :D

I must now hate you for your collection of weapons.

[Ghost]

There are seven states where it is illegal for an unmarried couple to live together. The states are Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia. The ACLU is challenging North Carolina's law against cohabitation, which was passed in 1805. Although such laws are rarely enforced these days, "at least 36 people have been charged in North Carolina since 1997, with seven convicted," according to a recent newspaper article (http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0505/12/A06-179352.htm). "Violators are subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and a sentence of up to 60 days in jail."

Over the weekend, The Detroit News held a survey (http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0505/21/D08-188392.htm) asking readers whether Michigan's anti-cohabitation law should be struck down. Most of those who responded (59%) favored the law against cohabitation, while 41% wanted the law done away with. One reader commented, "Cohabiters, gay marriage devotees, unwed mothers and fathers are all tearing the concept of marriage apart and ultimately destroying the country."

What do you think? If it was proven that married couples are more likely to be a positive influence on society, shouldn't government encourage it?

I personally find it amazing that this is even a subject worthy of bringing up to discussion. Where I come from, it is considered natural that people who love each other should have the right to be together, married or not, and I find it appaling that such laws exist to this day.

[west3man]

I wish I'd thought of this earlier (maybe someone else already mentioned it; Sagroth's post kinda touched on it), but...

What about all of the various college and university dormitories around the country - particularly those that are State-funded?! :eek:

[Tages]

I wish I'd thought of this earlier (maybe someone else already mentioned it; Sagroth's post kinda touched on it), but...

What about all of the various college and university dormitories around the country - particularly those that are State-funded?! :eek:
We live in a country where the government sues tobacco companies for billions of dollars while simultaneously paying money to subsidize tobacco farmers, none of this should be surprising.

The right hand doth not know what the left is doing.

[Rabid Trekkie]

We live in a country where the government sues tobacco companies for billions of dollars while simultaneously paying money to subsidize tobacco farmers, none of this should be surprising.

The right hand doth not know what the left is doing.

And the right hand doth not always know what it tis doing itself.

[Typo Lad]

And the right hand doth not always know what it tis doing itself.


The right hand doesn't want to KNOW what the left hand is doing. Besides, it's too busy moving the mouse to check.

[west3man]

We live in a country where the government sues tobacco companies for billions of dollars while simultaneously paying money to subsidize tobacco farmers, none of this should be surprising.

The right hand doth not know what the left is doing.
Well damn.
When you're right, you're right.


Still weird, though.

[Paul McEnery]

What strikes me about all of this is exactly how devalued the sacrament of marriage is in most everyone's eyes (and I speak as someone who's performed a wedding, and acted as toastmaster in three more).

Done right, a wedding is an act of magic; done right, a marriage is an act of magic. Not that anyone thinks of it that way, because we've been trained by a desacralized religion not to think that way.

In a desacralized religion, all the magic belongs to God and his vicar (or the State and its appointed representative -- same difference). It gets done to you -- once -- and that's that. You don't really participate in it at all. The real effect of this is less to bond man to woman (or MTM or WTW) than to bind men and women to the church or state.

Clearly, this is the real battleground with gay marriage, or with cohabitation. The Church and State are both expressing an interest in your private life -- you're supposed to belong to them, and they are supposed to be the guarantors of all social power.

Well, bollocks to that.

The magic of any sacred ritual -- and that's what we're talking about with any sacrament -- belongs exclusively to the participants. The person they choose to enact the rite of passage operates on their behalf, and only has the "magic" that the participants give up to him/her. S/he's a focus point for the magical intention of the participants (which of course includes the wedding party).

Then again, there are other equally magical relationships, whether married or not. Take the British artists Gilbert and George. One of them is actually married to somebody outside the artistic partnership, but they've clearly operated together for the last thirty some years in a Third Mind capacity -- a magical union where each participant ego gives up autonomy to the greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts whole.

Which takes me back to my original point. Both the Church and the State want to own the monopoly on being greater-that-the-sum-of-the-parts wholes (one more reason to separate the two by law). Any Church or State which demands absolute obedience -- well, we can all see a Jonestown or a Stalinist regime for what it is.

But even more liberal Churches and States demand obedience to a lesser extent. Partly it's a matter of unscrupulous priests and politicians, but it's also the simple fact that social structures are self-organizing. We're chimps, and we like to belong to groups. At some point, the group takes on a life of its own, and it wants more members, and the only way that works is if the members obey the rules -- that's how the group self-organizes.

If you're a voluntary member of the group, why then by all means don't eat shellfish or take blood transfusions; by all means wear the appropriate funny hats and skip work for High Feasts and Holy Days. But you see the strength of group self-organization when the involuntary members -- i.e. the children -- start to rebel. There's hell to pay then.

And still more blatantly do we see it when group self-organization strives to reel in the people who have no interest in membership. You will tithe (to the Church or the IRS); you will have nothing to do with sex except when we say so (and boy is that a powerful tool); you will read the approved texts in the approved manner, and nothing but the approved texts.

All of this is a Church, State, or indeed Corporation (the damn zaibatsus are acting more like churches and states all the time) hogging space in the noosphere -- or, to put it less opaquely, acting as if they're bloody God.

When Stalin acts like God, we fight him. When Jimmy Swaggart acts like God, we expose him. But for some reason, we accept the right of our own authoritarian churches, our supposedly democratic governments, and even our copyright- and patent-holding corporations to tell us what we can and can't do.

Again, as a minister at someone's wedding, I take the "magic" from the bride, groom, and wedding party so as to give it back to them, because that's the power they've given me. Bloody great churches, states, and corporations leech off our "magic" because they've got the power to take it from us whether we like it or not.

Unless, of course, we think of it as "magic", and take the appropriate steps.

[BlairH]

This "Living in Sin" malarky shouldn't be illegal per say. I'm all for cohabitation if that's what folk want to do. However it's not for me I'm afraid. I'm not really a big fan of sex before marriage either and all that (kinda takes the "special spark" away from a relationship I think)

[Spike-X]

This "Living in Sin" malarky shouldn't be illegal per say. I'm all for cohabitation if that's what folk want to do. However it's not for me I'm afraid. I'm not really a big fan of sex before marriage either and all that (kinda takes the "special spark" away from a relationship I think)

Isn't it possible, though, for a relationship to have a 'special spark' even if the people involved haven't decided to spend the rest of their lives together?

[BlairH]

Isn't it possible, though, for a relationship to have a 'special spark' even if the people involved haven't decided to spend the rest of their lives together?

If it's the "real deal" spark then they should want to spend the rest of their lives together. If they don't then the relationship is no better than a one night stand.

In my -admittedly- narrow minded opinion of course.

[west3man]

In my -admittedly- narrow minded opinion of course.
Hehe.

That kinda one-liner just takes the wind right outta my "Well, lemme tell u a thing or three" sails. :p

[Ayo]

Strike 7,652, America!

[Ronald Bryan]

I believe most, if not all, of the North Carolina charges are from this one judge in Charlotte who will ask every person in his courtroom if they are living with a member of the opposite sex and are unmarried. He's a stickler for this law, and there has been a bit of an uproar but not enough to actually do anything.

The main problem with the law is that apartments will not rent out to an unmarried couple. You have to cheat in some way or another, by either getting the apartment as one person, and then move the other one in, and then also say that the other person is not living at that address. My sister was having problems finding a place for a while because of this.

[MacQuarrie]

I think married people are doing a fine job of ruining the country, I certainly won't take all of the credit. The worst thing that's happening to marriage these days isn't gays or me and my boyfriend shacking up...it's that no one has to go into it for good.

And maybe some of those divorces wouldnt happen if people would have done the responsible thing and thought to see if they could actually live together first. I don't care if you don't believe in sex before marriage or not...I think it's retarded to get married if you've never lived with the person. So many people discover how poorly they mesh when they are forced to live in an apartment together, fighintg over money, time spent togeter and house chores.
the data indicates that the opposite is true. People who live together before marriage are about five times more likely to divorce than people who don't.

But aside from that, to answer the question in the thread title, I think that this is one of those things that should not be addressed by the law at all. I'm really not big on making very much illegal. There are a lot of things that used to be addressed by etiquette or common sense that now seem to be the domain of the law. Let's remember that the law is nothing but pure force, and a very blunt instrument it is, too.

Whether "living in sin" is a good idea or not is something that can be debated all day. Making it illegal is intrusive and authoritarian.

[Tages]

the data indicates that the opposite is true. People who live together before marriage are about five times more likely to divorce than people who don't.

But aside from that, to answer the question in the thread title, I think that this is one of those things that should not be addressed by the law at all. I'm really not big on making very much illegal. There are a lot of things that used to be addressed by etiquette or common sense that now seem to be the domain of the law. Let's remember that the law is nothing but pure force, and a very blunt instrument it is, too.

Whether "living in sin" is a good idea or not is something that can be debated all day. Making it illegal is intrusive and authoritarian.
Marry me. I insist.

[phoenixrising]

the data indicates that the opposite is true. People who live together before marriage are about five times more likely to divorce than people who don't.



I'd read thatbefore...but I assume that it doesn't apply as much to my generationas it did the one immediately before. (But this is only from first-hand, anecdotal evidence)

[MacQuarrie]

I'd read thatbefore...but I assume that it doesn't apply as much to my generationas it did the one immediately before. (But this is only from first-hand, anecdotal evidence)
You may be right. Then again, I'm an old fart.

[MacQuarrie]

Marry me. I insist.
Sorry, already spoken for.

[howyadoin]

I believe most, if not all, of the North Carolina charges are from this one judge in Charlotte who will ask every person in his courtroom if they are living with a member of the opposite sex and are unmarried. He's a stickler for this law, and there has been a bit of an uproar but not enough to actually do anything.I'm surprised somebody hasn't voted with a bullet.

[Paradox]

Tages says something very odd:

We live in a country where the government sues tobacco companies for billions of dollars while simultaneously paying money to subsidize tobacco farmers, none of this should be surprising.

The right hand doth not know what the left is doing.

Heh, I find that kind of strange, especially coming from YOU, Tages.

The right hand most DEFINITELY knows what the left is doing...it just doesn't care (or, in some odd situations, it's exactly the plan).

[Spike-X]

If it's the "real deal" spark then they should want to spend the rest of their lives together. If they don't then the relationship is no better than a one night stand.

In my -admittedly- narrow minded opinion of course.
So it's either a lifetime commitment or a cheap, meaningless fling? The BlairH universe is one of extremes, it would seem.

[Zero Hunter]

Shakes my head and looks at the floor while mumbling "Why does it always have to be Michigan when something assinine like this comes up".

Serously this is a good example of why I am getting more and more scared here in America as Reverend Bush and the rest of the bible thumbers get more and more power over things. If theings keep going like they are soon stuff like this WILL be enforced all over the country as the Republican church reshapes America into its holy view of whats right and wahts wrong.

[Jared_Humpherys]

Shakes my head and looks at the floor while mumbling "Why does it always have to be Michigan when something assinine like this comes up".

Serously this is a good example of why I am getting more and more scared here in America as Reverend Bush and the rest of the bible thumbers get more and more power over things. If theings keep going like they are soon stuff like this WILL be enforced all over the country as the Republican church reshapes America into its holy view of whats right and wahts wrong.

And that, my friend, is when I'm moving overseas...

[The MunchKING]

And that, my friend, is when I'm moving overseas...


I wonder if Australia would take me... ;)

[Spike-X]

I wonder if Australia would take me... ;)
No.





.