Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Why does this require marriage?

Further, why can't I be emotionally invested in multiple people? I have more than one friend, after all.
...
If you have to be married to want to be with someone for the rest of your life, gays clearly cannot want this in any state in which they can't marry, correct? (This isn't me assuming that you're anti-gay marriage, incidentally, I'm just using it as an extension of your logic.)

Why is marriage a requisite for a stable relationship?

Obviously you're not married.

Correct. I also don't want to be. Not because I have no-one to marry, incidentally. Also not because I'm a commitment phobe. I simply disagree with the legal obligations that it commits me to in the event that I get divorced.

Can't get a date huh?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Why does this require marriage?

Further, why can't I be emotionally invested in multiple people? I have more than one friend, after all.
...
If you have to be married to want to be with someone for the rest of your life, gays clearly cannot want this in any state in which they can't marry, correct? (This isn't me assuming that you're anti-gay marriage, incidentally, I'm just using it as an extension of your logic.)

Why is marriage a requisite for a stable relationship?

Obviously you're not married.

Correct. I also don't want to be. Not because I have no-one to marry, incidentally. Also not because I'm a commitment phobe. I simply disagree with the legal obligations that it commits me to in the event that I get divorced.

Just sayin' that there's a different attitude that comes when you make a lifelong commitment like that to another person.

Maybe it's different if you're not religious, but it definately changes your perspective.

halonachos wrote:Marriage requirments are a typically american idea, we were founded by protestants and puritans.

That is sort of a half truth. Jamestown Colony was Protestant in the sense that there really wasn't an option not to be but it was a corporate colony found on corporate interests, not religious ones. You sort of go into that later but put way more emphasis on the religious aspects of the early colonies when the motivations were far more varied than that. This dichotomy is more of an explanation for why our porn industry is so thriving while we get outraged at the same time becuase of a nipple flashes on screen for half a second. Your emphasis on religion is to simplistic,becuase even at that time there were a myriad of religious views and experimental societies. I'm not really sure, do Diests count as protestant or would they fall into a different category? Considering the large number of them and that they questioned the divinity of Jesus it seems like that movement would have fallen outside of that realm. Ancient Roman and Greek ideas also played a part as well. To put such an emphasis on religion shows they don't know their history that well. It's a complex amalgam of motivating factors not easily boiled down, unless ones intent is to perpetuate half myths for propaganda purposes. Like teaching kids that pilgrims wanted religious freedom but not explaining that they didn't want it for others, just themselves and strung up Quakers for not following their brand of Christianity.

I'm also not sure that a majority of people in America support abstinence only programs. If it were that cut and dry there wouldn't be much debate about them. If you have some non Focus on the Family numbers from reputable sources to back that up I would be happy to see them.

Ahtman wrote:I'm also not sure that a majority of people in America support abstinence only programs. If it were that cut and dry there wouldn't be much debate about them. If you have some non Focus on the Family numbers from reputable sources to back that up I would be happy to see them.

Was that directed at me?

I don’t have anything with me. I don’t think there has been an official abstinence only program in the US, at least not on any scale. It went from just the sort of cultural norm straight into the current style of sex education programs.

I know that not every kid is going to wait until marriage. And I’m fine with older kids being taught some basic contraception techniques (married people use them too). What I don’t like is the prevailing attitude that kids are going to be sexual starting at 15, and if we don’t accept it and show them how to use condoms they’ll all wind up pregnant and destitute. If there was nothing else be an attitude change where abstinence was a goal kids were encouraged to strive for I would be ecstatic, and I think you would have a lot more well adjusted and happy teenagers. As of right now you are laughed at just for suggesting kids should try it.

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Why does this require marriage?

Further, why can't I be emotionally invested in multiple people? I have more than one friend, after all.
...
If you have to be married to want to be with someone for the rest of your life, gays clearly cannot want this in any state in which they can't marry, correct? (This isn't me assuming that you're anti-gay marriage, incidentally, I'm just using it as an extension of your logic.)

Why is marriage a requisite for a stable relationship?

Obviously you're not married.

Correct. I also don't want to be. Not because I have no-one to marry, incidentally. Also not because I'm a commitment phobe. I simply disagree with the legal obligations that it commits me to in the event that I get divorced.

Just sayin' that there's a different attitude that comes when you make a lifelong commitment like that to another person.

Maybe it's different if you're not religious, but it definately changes your perspective.

I think his point was... "why can't I make that commitment to more than one person?" I'm pretty sure based on how you posted you won't be able to get into WARBOSS TZOO's head... so let me break it down for you.

He (WARBOSS TZOO) feels that the current marriage restrictions shouldn't exist. This obviously isn't the topic of the thread, but I agree with him.

As for a non-religious person... I'm getting Married in August. i am also an atheist. I'm not so sure I understand just how exaclty you think religion adds to your personal relationship/contract/obligations to your partner, but I'm sure you'll try to tell us.

Back on topic. I agree with what Frazzled agreed with on the front page.

In addition to that. Assuming Jesus was real, the character he has been portrayed as would say "get rid of the tax cuts for the rich"






Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I'm also not sure that a majority of people in America support abstinence only programs. If it were that cut and dry there wouldn't be much debate about them. If you have some non Focus on the Family numbers from reputable sources to back that up I would be happy to see them.

Was that directed at me?

I don’t have anything with me. I don’t think there has been an official abstinence only program in the US, at least not on any scale. It went from just the sort of cultural norm straight into the current style of sex education programs.

I know that not every kid is going to wait until marriage. And I’m fine with older kids being taught some basic contraception techniques (married people use them too). What I don’t like is the prevailing attitude that kids are going to be sexual starting at 15, and if we don’t accept it and show them how to use condoms they’ll all wind up pregnant and destitute. If there was nothing else be an attitude change where abstinence was a goal kids were encouraged to strive for I would be ecstatic, and I think you would have a lot more well adjusted and happy teenagers. As of right now you are laughed at just for suggesting kids should try it.

I started at 15, most the people I know did also. I think you'd be surprised at how young they start these days. 15 is too late. 11-12 is a prime time to start teaching... before the horomones kick in and they are semilogical.

AND to be honest... IMHO the simple social pressure against it and the lack of freely available contraceptive... will cause more kids to be scared to buy them... and thus do their thing with out the contraceptive.

Out of honest curiosity, how do the people who are in favour of abstinence-only education feel about kissing? It's the primary way of infecting oneself with Herpes HSV-1. Are there people in favour of just kissing after marrying or is that a risk that is deemed acceptable to take even before marriage?

frgsinwntr wrote:I started at 15, most the people I know did also. I think you'd be surprised at how young they start these days. 15 is too late. 11-12 is a prime time to start teaching... before the horomones kick in and they are semilogical

I know a lot of kids start that age. I went to high school too. But that’s not ok, and sex education at 11 is, no offense, crazy.

60 years ago our grandparent’s generation didn’t start until their mid twenties. Our parents generation probably their early twenties. We shouldn’t just accept this deterioration, it hasn’t always been like this and we should really fix it. A change in the way we present sexuality to our children would go a long way.

Witzkatz wrote:Out of honest curiosity, how do the people who are in favour of abstinence-only education feel about kissing? It's the primary way of infecting oneself with Herpes HSV-1. Are there people in favour of just kissing after marrying or is that a risk that is deemed acceptable to take even before marriage?

It's also led to the spreading of herpies and such through oral stimulation. As well as to the spreading of ORAL cancer (caused by HPV) since kids see oral stimulation as safer since they can't/are too scared to get condoms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I started at 15, most the people I know did also. I think you'd be surprised at how young they start these days. 15 is too late. 11-12 is a prime time to start teaching... before the horomones kick in and they are semilogical

I know a lot of kids start that age. I went to high school too. But that’s not ok, and sex education at 11 is, no offense, crazy.

60 years ago our grandparent’s generation didn’t start until their mid twenties. Our parents generation probably their early twenties. We shouldn’t just accept this deterioration, it hasn’t always been like this and we should really fix it. A change in the way we present sexuality to our children would go a long way.

60 years ago your grandparents had 4 kids by the time they were 21.

I don't understand why you are scared of teaching Biology or consider teaching Biology to kids that are 11 crazy

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:I don’t have anything with me. I don’t think there has been an official abstinence only program in the US, at least not on any scale. It went from just the sort of cultural norm straight into the current style of sex education programs.

Really?

Wiki wrote:Abstinence-only sex education became more prominent in the U.S. over the last decade, largely as a result of over $1 billion in federal government funding initiatives. Through direct funding and matching grant incentives, the U.S. government steered more than a billion dollars to abstinence-only education programs between 1996 and 2006.

This was pretty controversial. I'm not being snide, I honestly don't understand how you weren't aware of it.

frgsinwntr wrote:I think his point was... "why can't I make that commitment to more than one person?" I'm pretty sure based on how you posted you won't be able to get into WARBOSS TZOO's head... so let me break it down for you.

He (WARBOSS TZOO) feels that the current marriage restrictions shouldn't exist. This obviously isn't the topic of the thread, but I agree with him.

Exactly.

Well, that's one of my points, anyway.

First, marriage isn't a lifelong commitment anymore. What's the statistic, 50% of marriages end in divorce?

Second, Marriage, in and of itself, adds nothing to the relationship (leaving aside certain inheritance and tax laws and legal benefits). A couple who is getting married for love would be equally in love and together if marriage as we know it simply didn't exist.

Third, married parents aren't the ideal parents from the perspective of a child. A stable relationship where the partners love each other and the children is the ideal situation. Marriage doesn't, from my perspective, add to the likelyhood of that coming about.

on topic:

so we're making the assumption that Jesus is real and the Jesus we're talking about is the Biblical one not Hey-sus from accounting right?

Cana? Bethsaida? those places ring a bell?

He wont need to cut anything if he can feed the mutlitudes and turn water into wine.

frgsinwntr wrote:I think his point was... "why can't I make that commitment to more than one person?" I'm pretty sure based on how you posted you won't be able to get into WARBOSS TZOO's head... so let me break it down for you.

And my point was "you'll understand if/when you get married." Because most people do see things differently after they get married.

frgsinwntr wrote:He (WARBOSS TZOO) feels that the current marriage restrictions shouldn't exist. This obviously isn't the topic of the thread, but I agree with him.

Could you please be more specific about what marriage restrictions shouldn't exist? I'm going to assume that you believe that I should be able to marry my 2-year old daughter, a cabbage, my sister's dog, and my other neighbor's wife.

I disagree.

frgsinwntr wrote:As for a non-religious person... I'm getting Married in August. i am also an atheist. I'm not so sure I understand just how exaclty you think religion adds to your personal relationship/contract/obligations to your partner, but I'm sure you'll try to tell us.

Nope, I just said that it might be different for non-religious people. You probably don't understand what marriage is like for religious people. Frankly, it doesn't matter because individuals are different.

frgsinwntr wrote:In addition to that. Assuming Jesus was real, the character he has been portrayed as would say "get rid of the tax cuts for the rich"

"If Jesus was alive, he'd totally agree with me."

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:well adjusted and happy teenagers

You must not know very many teenagers. Or maybe it's been too long for you.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I started at 15, most the people I know did also. I think you'd be surprised at how young they start these days. 15 is too late. 11-12 is a prime time to start teaching... before the horomones kick in and they are semilogical

I know a lot of kids start that age. I went to high school too. But that’s not ok, and sex education at 11 is, no offense, crazy.

Why? If kids understand these things from an early age, they're less likely to feth up. It's why if you have guns you should start teaching them gun safety as early as possible.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:60 years ago our grandparent’s generation didn’t start until their mid twenties. Our parents generation probably their early twenties. We shouldn’t just accept this deterioration, it hasn’t always been like this and we should really fix it. A change in the way we present sexuality to our children would go a long way.

1000 years ago, if you were married and breeding at 13, you were a late developer.

We've come a long way, baby.

If a boy is old enough to get excited by girls, he is old enough for sex ed. What grandparents did is irrelevant (they also slept in separate beds if TV of their era is to be believed). Teaching them younger is not a sign of deterioration, it is a sign of not walking around with Ward-and-June-Cleaver blinders. While we're at it, I wish we could go back to whites only drinking fountains too, since everything was so much nicer and more pure in our grandparents day.

biccat wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I think his point was... "why can't I make that commitment to more than one person?" I'm pretty sure based on how you posted you won't be able to get into WARBOSS TZOO's head... so let me break it down for you.

And my point was "you'll understand if/when you get married." Because most people do see things differently after they get married.

For instance, my father saw that my mother was a total bitch after he was married to her. Certainly different to how he saw her beforehand.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I think his point was... "why can't I make that commitment to more than one person?" I'm pretty sure based on how you posted you won't be able to get into WARBOSS TZOO's head... so let me break it down for you.

And my point was "you'll understand if/when you get married." Because most people do see things differently after they get married.

For instance, my father saw that my mother was a total bitch after he was married to her. Certainly different to how he saw her beforehand.

Well then I suppose that completely blows a hole in this argument:

WARLORD TZOO wrote:Second, Marriage, in and of itself, adds nothing to the relationship (leaving aside certain inheritance and tax laws and legal benefits). A couple who is getting married for love would be equally in love and together if marriage as we know it simply didn't exist.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:I don’t have anything with me. I don’t think there has been an official abstinence only program in the US, at least not on any scale. It went from just the sort of cultural norm straight into the current style of sex education programs.

Really?

Wiki wrote:Abstinence-only sex education became more prominent in the U.S. over the last decade, largely as a result of over $1 billion in federal government funding initiatives. Through direct funding and matching grant incentives, the U.S. government steered more than a billion dollars to abstinence-only education programs between 1996 and 2006.

This was pretty controversial. I'm not being snide, I honestly don't understand how you weren't aware of it.

One billion dollars over ten years is not exactly a lot of money. It funded some programs, mostly in the south, of which I heard they had mixed success. But that is not really anything of scale compared to the amount of money that was spent nation wide during that time and since on traditional sex education programs.

And I just don’t think we are ever going to see eye to eye on this. I don’t know how to explain the merits of waiting until you are married to someone who questions the merits of marriage. There are some underlying assumptions about life, relationships, and how humans should live that we just don’t agree on.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:60 years ago our grandparent’s generation didn’t start until their mid twenties.

That is a just out and out false. You've been sold a bad bill of goods my friend.

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I think his point was... "why can't I make that commitment to more than one person?" I'm pretty sure based on how you posted you won't be able to get into WARBOSS TZOO's head... so let me break it down for you.

And my point was "you'll understand if/when you get married." Because most people do see things differently after they get married.

For instance, my father saw that my mother was a total bitch after he was married to her. Certainly different to how he saw her beforehand.

Well then I suppose that completely blows a hole in this argument:

WARLORD TZOO wrote:Second, Marriage, in and of itself, adds nothing to the relationship (leaving aside certain inheritance and tax laws and legal benefits). A couple who is getting married for love would be equally in love and together if marriage as we know it simply didn't exist.

Nope. The crucial factor was time spent together, not whether or not they were married. They would have separated either way.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:And I just don’t think we are ever going to see eye to eye on this. I don’t know how to explain the merits of waiting until you are married to someone who questions the merits of marriage. There are some underlying assumptions about life, relationships, and how humans should live that we just don’t agree on.

Perhaps you could begin by explaining why married relationships are superior to unmarried relationships?

Out of honest curiosity, how do the people who are in favour of abstinence-only education feel about kissing? It's the primary way of infecting oneself with Herpes HSV-1. Are there people in favour of just kissing after marrying or is that a risk that is deemed acceptable to take even before marriage?

frgsinwntr was so nice to point out further implications of kissing, but could I get an opinion from the advocates of abstinence-until-marriage concerning how they feel about kissing and kissing before marriage? It genuinely interests me.

Can we stop using the genreic term religious and start just be honest and say Christian? I know there are folks on here of other faiths but I don't get the impression any of them are on here at the moment and Christians don't speak for all other faiths. So instead of making it seem all religions (or even sects within the same religion) all have the same viewpoint jut be honest and state your own preference instead of masking it as a benign generic term..

I'm not questioning the merits of marriage but I am questioning the merits that a viewpoint founded on religious idealism and not research is accurate. People can live full lives and have safe sex without getting married. One isn't an absolute indicator of the other and I say this as someone who is happily married and has been so for some time.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Perhaps you could begin by explaining why married relationships are superior to unmarried relationships?

There is a level of commitment and permanence that you can’t achieve in a non married relationship. I know you will say (and have said) the only differences are legalities. I disagree, but even so the legalities influence the way you interact and the way handle conflict. Every dispute with a non married couple comes with the question of “Are we going to continue after this?” In a married relationship, at least one where people seriously mean to stay together for life, that tension is not around. It is a level of intimacy you cannot achieve otherwise.

Then if you take the traditional route and reserve your physical intimacy for marriage, living together until marriage, and raising children until marriage, you have an extremely rewarding and meaning relationship. I don’t think those things can be achieved by two people who just live together and say they are committed for life. If you are committed for life then why not get married? It’s an excuse for people who want the easy out if things get too tough.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Perhaps you could begin by explaining why married relationships are superior to unmarried relationships?

There is a level of commitment and permanence that you can’t achieve in a non married relationship. I know you will say (and have said) the only differences are legalities. I disagree, but even so the legalities influence the way you interact and the way handle conflict. Every dispute with a non married couple comes with the question of “Are we going to continue after this?” In a married relationship, at least one where people seriously mean to stay together for life, that tension is not around. It is a level of intimacy you cannot achieve otherwise.

Why can't you mean to stay together for life without being married? Perhaps the female of the pair resents the implications and history of marriage? (In case you weren't aware, historically marriage was the sale of a daughter to a man by a father. Hence the father of the bride "giving her away").

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:Then if you take the traditional route and reserve your physical intimacy for marriage, living together until marriage, and raising children until marriage, you have an extremely rewarding and meaning relationship. I don’t think those things can be achieved by two people who just live together and say they are committed for life. If you are committed for life then why not get married? It’s an excuse for people who want the easy out if things get too tough.

Same as above.

Ahtman wrote:Can we stop using the genreic term religious and start just be honest and say Christian?

No.

Also, why do you assume I'm Christian?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Why can't you mean to stay together for life without being married? Perhaps the female of the pair resents the implications and history of marriage? (In case you weren't aware, historically marriage was the sale of a daughter to a man by a father. Hence the father of the bride "giving her away").

Meaning to stay to together for life is not the same thing as being married. Being married makes it difficult for you to leave. It brings consequences for leaving, and for cheating, and for any number of other bad behaviors. Being willing to put yourself in that situation matters. It says something about who you are and what your intentions with this person really are. I can say “I’ll be with you forever,” all day long. It’s easy, it costs me nothing, and I never need to do any serious introspection to know if I really mean it because in reality there are no consequences to it.

I’m fine if someone doesn’t want to get married. But a non married relationship is not the same as a married relationship.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Perhaps you could begin by explaining why married relationships are superior to unmarried relationships?

There is a level of commitment and permanence that you can’t achieve in a non married relationship. I know you will say (and have said) the only differences are legalities. I disagree, but even so the legalities influence the way you interact and the way handle conflict. Every dispute with a non married couple comes with the question of “Are we going to continue after this?” In a married relationship, at least one where people seriously mean to stay together for life, that tension is not around. It is a level of intimacy you cannot achieve otherwise.

Then if you take the traditional route and reserve your physical intimacy for marriage, living together until marriage, and raising children until marriage, you have an extremely rewarding and meaning relationship. I don’t think those things can be achieved by two people who just live together and say they are committed for life. If you are committed for life then why not get married? It’s an excuse for people who want the easy out if things get too tough.

I was just thinking someone else has spare keys and can open the car when you've locked your keys in the car with the headlights on?

biccat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Can we stop using the genreic term religious and start just be honest and say Christian?

No.

Also, why do you assume I'm Christian?

Why do you assume I'm specifically and/or only talking to you. And you can, you just choose not to. Are you really so insecure in your beliefs you can't even name them? You would rather pretend your religion is "Religion"? That is kind of sad.

Frazzled wrote:I was just thinking someone else has spare keys and can open the car when you've locked your keys in the car with the headlights on?

My wife has a knack for knowing where the keys are. I am the luckiest man alive.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I was just thinking someone else has spare keys and can open the car when you've locked your keys in the car with the headlights on?

My wife has a knack for knowing where the keys are. I am the luckiest man alive.

My wife almost backed into two cars yesterday. She didn't by a hair. I'M the luckiest man alive.

Ahtman wrote:Why do you assume I'm specifically and/or only talking to you.

Because I'm the only one who has used it in this thread in a manner that the religion in question was not immediately apparent.

Seriously, push CTRL and F together, type "religion" and you'll see. It's like magic.

Ahtman wrote:And you can, you just choose not to.

Because I think religious people, regardless of their faith, have more in common with eachother than they do with Atheists. And part of that is viewing the world differently.

Ahtman wrote:Are you really so insecure in your beliefs you can't even name them? You would rather pretend your religion is "Religion"? That is kind of sad.

Yes, that's it exactly. You've sure got me pegged. It has nothing to do with the fact that religion and non-religion are different, it's that I'm a self-hating (whatever).

It's your bigotry that is at issue here. You seem to think that only Christians have a world-view that you disagree with, and that all Christians are mindless ideologues: "a viewpoint founded on religious idealism and not research."

Stop the hate.

@Ahtman,

Unfortunately I have no statistics besides the ones provided in my psychology text. These show that abstinence only programs are inferior, but still supported by the government. The reason why most schools go along with it is because of the fact that the Federal government gives funding to those schools that offer only Abstinence only programs.

I'm going to have to base my argument partly on the fact that only 17 of the 50 united states are willing to forgo funding in order to teach comprehensive sex classes.

Comparing our teen pregnancy rates to other developed nations shows that even though we tend to be the more religious of them all we have a higher rate of teen pregnancy as well compared to countrues that teach comprehensive sex education.

As far as the colonies go we started with a large religious population, puritans and protestants mainly. We then established a buffer colony, now known as Georgia because of the threat from the Catholic spanish colonies in Florida.

Statistics have shown that atheism is higher in most European countries compared to the United States so the logical path would have to say that its because we have more followers of religion. The most popular religion being Christianity and its derivatives(Baptist, Catholic, Protestant, etc). Traditional religion teaches that premarital sex is bad and that abstinence before sex is a part of getting into heaven. I'm going to have to use this as a basis for my opinion on why the majority of people support abstinence only programs. I'll have to look in my book at the statistics about the time the child received sex education in school though. In some cases girls weren't taught about sex until the 10th grade, really interesting stuff there.

Some other controversial studies were about the offering of condoms in public high schools. One study compared New York and Chicago, schools in one city offered condoms while the other didn't. The other study compared high schools in Boston, some provided condoms and others didn't. These studies showed that condom availability reduced the amount of sexual partners and partially delayed the first time of intercourse.

Also, pre-marital sex is frowned upon in most religions, not just Christianity.