God rest ye merry hypocrites

[flaja]

Religious marriage is all well and good but its civil marriage that counts and the reason is that marriage had that connotation before it ever got a religious one. The world over societies have rerwarded opposite sex marriage as it makes sense and serves as the best building block to better the society as a whole. Other relationships don't provide this and are not rewarded so.

The purpose of marriage has always been to regulate sex, but liberals and libertarians don’t understand this because neither wants their sex lives to be regulated.

Traditionally speaking human individuals did not choose their own mate. A person’s spouse has traditionally been chosen by their parents or other supervisory kin. You had to be lucky to end up with a spouse that you found physically attractive, and you had to be damned lucky to end up with a spouse with whom you could establish any kind of emotional bond. The choice of spouse was seldom left to the people who were actually getting married since marriage was meant to provide men with sex; to provide women with physical and financial security and to provide society with children with which it could perpetuate itself. Society dissolves (much as America’s society has dissolved over the past 60 years) when we allow men to seek sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage and when we allow women to seek security outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage and allow children to be produced and reared outside of the normal family structure that is provided by monogamous heterosexual marriage. The most religion can do is uphold what is already found in a stable society.

 

[PLC1]

The purpose of marriage has always been to regulate sex, but liberals and libertarians don’t understand this because neither wants their sex lives to be regulated.

Traditionally speaking human individuals did not choose their own mate. A person’s spouse has traditionally been chosen by their parents or other supervisory kin. You had to be lucky to end up with a spouse that you found physically attractive, and you had to be damned lucky to end up with a spouse with whom you could establish any kind of emotional bond. The choice of spouse was seldom left to the people who were actually getting married since marriage was meant to provide men with sex; to provide women with physical and financial security and to provide society with children with which it could perpetuate itself. Society dissolves (much as America’s society has dissolved over the past 60 years) when we allow men to seek sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage and when we allow women to seek security outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage and allow children to be produced and reared outside of the normal family structure that is provided by monogamous heterosexual marriage. The most religion can do is uphold what is already found in a stable society.

that post brings up two obvious questions:

1. Are you for arranged marriages,like the ones in the Middle Eastern countries?

2. Who is this "we" who are allowing men to seek sex outside of the monogamous marriage, and that is allowing women to seek security outisde of it (i.e., be able to own property and work for a decent salary)?

I suppose if we had a theocracy that didn't allow men to have sex outside of marriage, and didn't allow women to be the equal of men, then the family structure would be more stable, no question. Is that the kind of society you would prefer?

 

[flaja]

that post brings up two obvious questions:

1. Are you for arranged marriages,like the ones in the Middle Eastern countries?

Like they have in the Middle East no. I am merely pointing out that society has had a marked decline in the past 60 years because we no longer take marriage seriously.

2. Who is this "we" who are allowing men to seek sex outside of the monogamous marriage, and that is allowing women to seek security outisde of it (i.e., be able to own property and work for a decent salary)?[/quote]

Society.

I suppose if we had a theocracy that didn't allow men to have sex outside of marriage, and didn't allow women to be the equal of men, then the family structure would be more stable, no question. Is that the kind of society you would prefer?

As opposed to the society we now have? Yes.

 

[dogtowner]

Like they have in the Middle East no. I am merely pointing out that society has had a marked decline in the past 60 years because we no longer take marriage seriously.

2. Who is this "we" who are allowing men to seek sex outside of the monogamous marriage, and that is allowing women to seek security outisde of it (i.e., be able to own property and work for a decent salary)?

Society.



As opposed to the society we now have? Yes.[/quote]



yes, when sex outside marriage became accepted, marriage fell apart.

"if it feels good, do it" most destructive thing ever.

people married and divorced over the perceived pleasantness of this set of genitals vs that one. no love, no respect, no good.

 

[top gun]

Society.

As opposed to the society we now have? Yes.

yes, when sex outside marriage became accepted, marriage fell apart.

"if it feels good, do it" most destructive thing ever.

people married and divorced over the perceived pleasantness of this set of genitals vs that one. no love, no respect, no good.

You must be very young.

Historically just how far back in the sticks would you like to live so that all these great moral attributes would better America. Back before the Roaring 20's perhaps?

Yes people did divorce less in wagon train days. Do we have any takers wanting to go back to those great wagon train days?

 

[flaja]

You must be very young.

Historically just how far back in the sticks would you like to live so that all these great moral attributes would better America. Back before the Roaring 20's perhaps?

Yes people did divorce less in wagon train days. Do we have any takers wanting to go back to those great wagon train days?

What has society’s respect for marriage to do with wagon trains? Marriage has been a bulwark of society throughout history and has never been dependent on society’s state of technological development.

And you need not go back to wagon train days to find a time when society still had respect for marriage- unless you are talking about that TV show from the 1950s.

 

[dogtowner]

What has society’s respect for marriage to do with wagon trains? Marriage has been a bulwark of society throughout history and has never been dependent on society’s state of technological development.

And you need not go back to wagon train days to find a time when society still had respect for marriage- unless you are talking about that TV show from the 1950s.

no point in reasoning with TG, you cannot get to his universe from here.
he cannot seem to understand that the roaring 20's was a rather limited phenomenon.

 

[top gun]

What has society’s respect for marriage to do with wagon trains? Marriage has been a bulwark of society throughout history and has never been dependent on society’s state of technological development.

And you need not go back to wagon train days to find a time when society still had respect for marriage- unless you are talking about that TV show from the 1950s.

It has a lot to do with it.

That's about how far you'd have to go back to find a time when cheating during marriage wasn't rampant. And you do realize that for a long long long time now over 50% (that's over half) of marriages end in divorce anyway.

And you wonder why less people are getting married? Really?

Perhaps you believe people should just stay in abusive relationships?

And when people like gays want to get married to be more stable and settled down... you're against that of course.

You're fooling yourself on so many levels.

 

[flaja]

It has a lot to do with it.

That's about how far you'd have to go back to find a time when cheating during marriage wasn't rampant. And you do realize that for a long long long time now over 50% (that's over half) of marriages end in divorce anyway.

I seriously doubt that the divorce rate anywhere in the U.S. reached 50% before the first no-fault divorce law was enacted- in Ronald Reagan’s California.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2060521

Between the late 1920s and the late 1960s the U.S. divorce rate was stable apart from a couple of years during the Great Depression and then again during World War II. However the divorce rate began a major upward trend in the late 1960s.

And you wonder why less people are getting married? Really?

Mainly because society no longer condemns non-marital sex.

Perhaps you believe people should just stay in abusive relationships?

Perhaps you should document what percentage of divorces are due to abusive spouses.

And when people like gays want to get married to be more stable and settled down... you're against that of course.

The divorce rate among Sodomites is not just as high as it is for everybody else?

http://www.loveandpride.com/InformationCenter/Tips.aspx?categoryId=8

The first Sodomite divorce in Massachusetts was filed just 7 months after the first Sodomite marriage was created in Massachusetts.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

America has gone down hill ever since rights where given to non white males...downhill I tell you!

 

[Pandora]

I seriously doubt that the divorce rate anywhere in the U.S. reached 50% before the first no-fault divorce law was enacted- in Ronald Reagan’s California.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2060521

Between the late 1920s and the late 1960s the U.S. divorce rate was stable apart from a couple of years during the Great Depression and then again during World War II. However the divorce rate began a major upward trend in the late 1960s.



Mainly because society no longer condemns non-marital sex.



Perhaps you should document what percentage of divorces are due to abusive spouses.



The divorce rate among Sodomites is not just as high as it is for everybody else?

http://www.loveandpride.com/InformationCenter/Tips.aspx?categoryId=8

The first Sodomite divorce in Massachusetts was filed just 7 months after the first Sodomite marriage was created in Massachusetts.

Sodomite ? I knew someone once who insisted on calling homosexuals sodomites. I thought it was rude then and I think it is rude now.

 

[flaja]

Sodomite ? I knew someone once who insisted on calling homosexuals sodomites. I thought it was rude then and I think it is rude now.

Since when is it not the propper term? Sodomy is what the people you call gays commit, isn’t it?

 

[dogtowner]

Sodomite ? I knew someone once who insisted on calling homosexuals sodomites. I thought it was rude then and I think it is rude now.

Sodomizers better ? Sodomites is a little Old Testament I guess.

 

[Pandora]

Sodomizers better ? Sodomites is a little Old Testament I guess.

What is wrong with homosexual?


sodomites does make me think of the OT

Sodomizers come in all shapes and sizes, not just homosexual males.

There are far too many men who rape and sodomize women and kids and boys

homosexual describes someone whos identy sexually is for same sex


sodomizers are males who have anal sex. It could just as easily be a woman, child, dog or a male they are doing it to but it does not describe the person in any other way.

So why use the word as though thats all there is to a homosexual male, that they have anal sex?

 

[Pandora]

Since when is it not the propper term? Sodomy is what the people you call gays commit, isn’t it?

No, I dont call them gay, I call homosexuals, homosexual.

Do you think only homoseuxal males commit sodomy?

straight men do it too, are you saying all men who commit sodomy are homosexuals? Even if they do it to a woman?