Practical Arguments Against Moving In Together Before Marriage

There are many of them.

Haven’t you read any financial magazines?  Financial advice articles on msn.com or anywhere?  They all say the same thing -- get a complete credit check on your future to-be before even thinking about getting hitched.  Doing that would have revealed any and all financial hiccups in this person's past.  Gambling addictions, secret illegitimate children they are court-mandated to support, everything.

Do a full criminal background check.  In all fifty states.  And any international overseas criminal background checks.

Also any behavioral medical background.  Drug addictions, al anon, venereal diseases, abortions.

Sorry, but you have no right to huff and puff and get mad that that is all too nosy/busybody/none-of-your-damn-business/etc.  You’re getting married and/or moving in together.  The female has a right to know about everything.  And the male has a right to know about everything as well.

This should not be considered overly intrusive.  On the contrary, this should be considered just intrusive enough.  I mean, you're considering moving in with this person, for god's sake.  To even consider doing that, don't you want to first make sure this person is not a carjacker with AIDS?

It should really be common sense in this day and age, get full bloodwork done on each other.  All HIV, all hepatitis, all Chlamydia.  All what else, what else, that human papilloma virus that is apparently making the rounds nowadays.  Anything and everything.  This should be the case before you two even start having sex, whether you plan to get married or not.

Hey, look I'm not being hypocritical when I suggest all this background checking stuff.  When I get married, I will give my husband full disclosure and access to my background.  I will allow him to completely run the gamut of any and all background checks he wants to perform on me.  I have no problem being completely honest.  I'm an open book with the person I marry.  In return, I fully expect the same cooperation from him.  I'm talking family history of any murderous tendencies, bank statements to see if he ever owed any bookies money, everything.

The Road From Discovery- To Invention

Where does discovery end... and invention begin?

All the laws of physics were already set in place in the universe. (assembled in this arrangement)  All we had to do was find the precise combinations to be able to generate electricity, motion, atomic physics.  Sure, contraptions, machines can be invented, but __.

Isaac Newton stated, "If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."  Modern innovators, scientists, biomedical researchers are all standing on the shoulders of giants.  But which giants?

The natural laws of the universe have been set down before time immemorial.

Isn't it (the situation) that the laws of physics already dictated that it will be this way?  And then just sat back, waiting for us to discover the methods that put it in optimal arrangement so that the "inventions" could work?  Consider medicine and pharmacology.  Sure extraction + purification methods had to be created.  But didn't the laws of physics already decree that this precise medicine would have to be administered in this dosage, in this method (muscle, intrathecal, iv)?

What I am asking is, how much of this is truly invention and originality on the part of the human being?  What percentage of it was honestly completely willed into existence by the person who worked with this system most?  On the contrary, how much of it was, at its core and essence, merely discovery?

On a similar note, how much credit should the author or creator get?  There are grammar editing software programs, there are software that supposedly "increase your creativity tenfold" like mindmapping.  There are standing mixers that mix the butter and sugar or knead the bread dough; there are graphic design digital software programs. where must the line between creativity and help be drawn?