Some days ago, the youngest MP in the House made a suggestion that couples should live together before getting married and, for some reason, seemed to think that this was something that should be discussed.

I’m not completely sure that there wasn’t some sort of notion that the government should do something to facilitate this state of affairs coming about. That’s something that’s about to happen, given that – how shall I put it? – the government in its present incarnation is hardly about to annoy the Curia now, is it?

Exactly what prompted this mildly juvenile suggestion, though, isn’t entirely clear. To start with, I don’t think that many couples who felt like moving in with each other were about to wait for permission to be granted by the massed ranks of the Honourables.

And then I’m not too sure that there are too many young people to whom the idea about co-habiting without the benefit of preceding nuptials would not have occurred had it not been for Owen Bonnici mentioning it to them.

One of the planks on which the Honourable Gent rested his thesis, if memory serves, was that if people got to know each other a bit more closely (there’s nothing that brings home to you what the object of your desires is like than seeing him or her stumbling out of the pit on the morning after the night before) there would be less marital strife.

This, with all due respect to my young friend, is tripe and twaddle.

Living in sin – don’t you just love that description? – is hardly a state that has been eschewed by vast numbers of youths in foreign parts and their rate of martial break-up is hardly anything to write home about. In fact, the state of matrimony, insofar as a lasting state thereof is concerned, is conspicuous by its absence.

So, taking the loved one out for a trial run is certainly no guarantee that when push comes to shove, (s)he won’t shove off.

So, that which Bonnici was trying to achieve, other than getting himself mentioned, which is a laudable aim where politicians are concerned, is highly mud-like – as in, as clear as mud.

Somewhat worrying, though, is the frame of mind that underlies the very idea that the thought was expressed that the House should discuss the way people should interact with each other in a purely private setting. Given that it was hardly likely that anything meaningful was going to come out of such a discussion (what, no law making a six-month trial period mandatory before a marriage licence is granted?) (might not be such a bad idea, when you think about it, you don’t get to drive a car without proving you know how to) it was, frankly, a bit of a waste of hot air, which in this day and age is hardly a good idea.

But back to that frame of mind which is worrying.

Why is that gentlemen of the left seem to think that everything under the sun should be discussed and that everything under the sun should be facilitated, legislated for, regulated and otherwise put into some form of framework? Why do people with a certain political bent always think they know what’s good for everyone all the time? Ever heard of freedom of choice, guys?

To put it differently: if I, figuratively speaking, wanted to shack up with someone (and no wisecracks about my chances, at my age, OK?) I would do this quite independently from the fact that Parliament might be discussing it and resolving that it was – or was not – a good idea.

In other words, get out of my bedroom, Onorevlijiet, why don’t you?

I wouldn’t have been moved to put these thoughts down, really, hadn’t it been for the spokesman for the clergy, Roamer in last Sunday’s Times seeing fit to pooh-pooh the idea with such superior sanctimony. Chiming in with the usual refrain about family values and what have you, Roamer hauled himself up to his full height and pronounced Bonnici’s idea a “nutty proposal”.

Contrary type that I am, this would normally inspire me to leap to the defence of the idea.

The only snag is, it is pretty much a nutty notion, though if giving effect to it (don’t ask me how) were to combat the effects of spoilt brats getting hitched because it’s fashionable and then running back to mummy as soon as the other half doesn’t live up to the fantasy, then it would be almost worth legislating to make pre-nuptial co-habitation mandatory.

Oh whatever, just discuss something important, why don’t you, and let the rest of us get on with our lives, as we’ve always done, pretty much ignoring you.

Now sit back and watch how the Lil’Elves will turn this into a discussion on how Mintoff was the best thing since sliced bread and how Malta in 2008 is a living hell compared with the paradise on earth that it was in the 1971-1987 era.

Those strands of discussion will be interspersed with comments about how I’m ignoring MITTSgate, emailGATE, SewageChargeGate, FuelGatePrice and whatever other –gate has caught the fancy of said Lil’Elves.

Just for the record, guys, I’ll write what I choose to write about – call me an arrogant son-of-a-gun if you like, I’ll just sit here and enjoy it, my enjoyment made fuller by the delicious aroma of sour grapes that oozes from your every pore.