When I was in college studying computer science, there was a new idea going around called “design patterns”. Basically, this was a cookbook of component arrangements that were “best practices” for solving certain problems. Depending on your problem, you might try different patterns, like Observer, Visitor, Strategy, etc. And it turns out that there are design patterns for social issues, too.

Here’s a new report from the Institute for Family Studies:

Fifty to 65% of Americans believe that living together before marriage will improve their odds of relationship success. Younger Americans are especially likely to believe in the beneficial effects of cohabitation, and to view living together as providing a valuable test of a relationship ahead of marriage. Yet living together before marriage has long been associated with a higher risk for divorce, contradicting the common belief that cohabitation will improve the odds of a marriage lasting.

[…]Using a new national sample of Americans who married for the first time in the years 2010 to 2019, we examined the stability of these marriages as of 2022 based on whether or not, and when, people had lived together prior to marriage. Consistent with prior research, couples who cohabited before marriage were more likely to see their marriages end than those who did not cohabit before marriage.

Key findings:

•  34% of marriages ended among those who cohabited before being engaged, compared to 23% of marriages for those who lived together only after being either married or engaged to be married.

And this from the key takeaways was interesting:

• Reasons for moving in together also matter: People who reported that their top reason for moving in together was either to test the relationship or because it made sense financially were more likely to see their marriages end than those who did so because they wanted to spend more time with their partner.
• Having a greater number of prior cohabiting partners is associated with a higher likelihood of marriages ending.

I think the key point in these studies is that couples who decide to commit are moving in very different reasons than couples who just slide into cohabitation because it’s convenient.

It’s interesting because it shows that being cautious about commitment is more likely to cause instability. The attitude seems to be “I’ll keep doing this as long as it makes me happy”.

With commitment, the attitude is going to be more like “let’s decide to unite, and then it will be on us to make it work”. The old marriage vows were all about that commitment. I really have to wonder whether people mean it when they say those words today, they are so counter to our hedonistic culture.

I think what people should be looking for is a mate who thinks that the relationship works better if both people work at it. If you have one person who thinks that it is the other person’s job to make them happy, run from that relationship. Like, if you are always doing little things to help the other person do well in their tasks and purposes, and they never do anything to help you, then that’s a bad sign. You don’t want to commit to someone who thinks that relationships should be effortless, that they don’t have to do anything to put gas in your fuel tank in order to make you perform.

Ideally, you want someone who thinks that it’s fun to put fuel in your tank, and thinks that it’s their job to do that for you. Just because they like to see your engine run.

Sometimes, people who don’t know very much about politics lazily say “both parties are the same, so it doesn’t matter whether you vote or not… the system is rigged”. But is this really true? Let’s take a look at the issue of immigration, and see if the two parties really are the same when we look at the details.

Here’s an article from Breitbart News:

Reps. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) and Andy Ogles (R-TN) are introducing legislation that would ban President Joe Biden’s administration from importing Palestinians to the United States to be resettled in American communities.

The bill, exclusively shared with Breitbart News ahead of its introduction, is titled the “Guaranteeing Aggressors Zero Admission Act” or the GAZA Act. The legislation would prevent Biden’s administration from issuing visas to those with Palestinian Authority passports.

[…]Likewise, the bill would prevent Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from funneling Palestinians into the U.S. through the agency’s parole pipeline.

But what about the Democrat view of immigration?

Following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Biden used his administration’s parole pipeline to resettle nearly 100,000 Afghans across American communities — many of whom were not interviewed in person beforehand and who were found to be linked to terrorism.

As Breitbart News reported, in Fiscal Year 2022 alone, Biden’s DHS gave green cards to about 63,000 legal immigrants to permanently resettle in the U.S. who arrived from countries previously included in a national travel ban list due to their involvement with terrorism.

What I am hearing is that the weapons that America abandoned fell into the hands of the Palestinians, which is why you can see photographs of them holding American military weapons. That seems to be Biden’s foreign policy – arm our enemies, reward them with cash and prizes for attacking us and our allies.

Meanwhile, here’s a message from Ron DeSantis, reported in Fox News:

Florida Gov. and GOP presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis Sunday stuck to his stance that the U.S. should not accept refugees from Gaza amid the ongoing conflict with Israel.

“Palestinian Arabs should go to Arab countries, the U.S. should not be absorbing any of those,” DeSantis said during an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday.

The Florida governor’s remarks come after he sparked controversy with comments made on the campaign trail in Iowa Saturday, arguing to those in the audience that the refugees would be “antisemitic.”

“I don’t know what Biden’s going to do, but we cannot accept people from Gaza into this country as refugees,” DeSantis said during the event. “If you look at how they behave, not all of them are Hamas, but they are all antisemitic. None of them believe in Israel’s right to exist.”

That’s bold, but he’s not wrong.

So there is a clear difference between the parties on issues. I think the people who say that there is no difference just don’t know what the differences are, because it takes work to know.