[aldo_14]

Why do they have to get married?

What law is it that says you cannot be a loving couple - or indeed parents if you so choose - if you are not married?

[Ransom]

Originally posted by Liberator
If they are too young to marry legally, they are too young to be having sex and risking pregnancy and, as Kaz is fond of pointing out, Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

Er, the legal age for sex is 16 (at least here) which is two years below the legal age for marriage so that's wrong.

And, er, from what I gather Liberator, you don't have a girlfriend so you couldn't possibly have been in this kind of situation or even in the possibility of the situation. So your view is somewhat skewed. It's easier to judge things from a distance because it's not going to affect you personally.

[Liberator]

There is, of course, no law; other than society's expectations.  

Traditional Western mores say that the male in a relationship like we are discussing is responsible for providing for his family.

You're pathetic if you won't make a public declaration to care for the potential mother of your children.

[01010]

I do not want to marry, I stated that, I view it as unnecessary if two people love each other, I'm not going anywhere and neither is she, so why waste time and money especially when couples here (U.K) that live together for a few years get the same benefits as a married couple. Marriage to me is an archaic and unecessary institution that is a byproduct of a religion that I do not subscribe to, you cannot use your own religion steeped morality to dictate someone elses life especially if they do not subscribe to that religion. I have no problem publically declaring my feelings for her either, everyone I know knows that I adore her and vice versa.

It would not be a matter of convenience either, in what way is an abortion "convenient", in what way is that tragedy anything but ****ing NECESSARY in a situation where it would impair TWO REAL PEOPLE'S lives to a degree that NONE of the family unit would have a decent quality of life? My G/F would be devastated if she had to abort a child, it is not something she would EVER do as "convenience" as you so eloquently put it, it would be the choice between starting a family now with a poor quality of life for the family unit, or abort the child and start a family later on where all members of the family can enjoy a good life and hopefully raise a child that is a productive and helpful member of society.

Seriously, you ****ing fundamentalist are so backward thinking, you bemoan single parent families and their so called destruction of societys moral fibre, and yet you advocate them being single parent families with your hypocritical logic.

[aldo_14]

Why doesn't staying together count as a public declaration?

Why doesn't being in love count?

What difference does a sliver round an index finger make between 2 people already in love?

What is the difference between marital and non-marital sex if the couple involved are faithful to each other and in love?

Is this based around anything other than your own personal, religious beliefs around marriage?

[Kazan]

the psychological risks and consequences of not having sex until marriage is a key factor in the higher rate of marriage failure amoung fundamentalist christians

for one - without knowing it's very unlikely for two individuals to have the same sex drive: differences in sex drive can ruin marriages

oh BTW: you act like it's only unwed mothers getting abortions - MARRIED WOMEN GET THEM TOO

[Liberator]

The only way differences in sex drive ruining marriages is if the more libidinous member of the couple is a selfish twit.

Single parents wouldn't be single parents if they had given some forethought as to their actions or at least their partner.

That's all I'm asking for, A LITTLE ****ING FORETHOUGHT!

[aldo_14]

Maybe you should be thinking outside the confines of force-fed stereotypes when considering the rest of the world?

[Liberator]

Why?  

You don't think outside you're force fed stereotypes when thinking about me or others of my position.

[Kazan]

Liberator: well fortunately millions of fundamentalist christian men think it's the sole responsibility of their women to tend the home, kids, and satisfy the men's every sexual whim at their desire

and the women are supposed to enjoy it.


_SURE_

[Ransom]

Liberator: So you're saying you don't think outside your force fed stereotypes because he isn't? That's a great excuse, remind me to use it some time.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Liberator
Why?  

You don't think outside you're force fed stereotypes when thinking about me or others of my position.

you're showing one of your force fed stereotypes by thinking _we're_ doing the same

no everybody stereotypes or even listens to attempts of people to force feed them stereotypes

guess what: my KNOWLEDGE of the atrocities religion causes is academic, not from stereotyping.

[vyper]

Liberator & Deep - opinion on the morning after pill? (and the pill itself for that matter?)

[Liberator]

Okay, this is where I get in trouble with others.  I'm okay with the "morning after" pill.  So long as it's truly the morning after(2-3 days), at this point it's still just a mass of cells.  A month out is a different story, by this point it's already well-organized and on it's way to being a person.

I do believe however that so-called "morning after" should be withheld from general distribution until it is perfected.  RU-whatever has had far too many dangerous side-effects to be considered safe.

Understand, my ultimate goal is to eliminate the atrocity that is abortion.


This extends to other(forgive me) bleeding edge topics such as cloning and, to a much lesser extent, stem cells.  

I don't think cloning should be undertaken with the express goal of cloning a human.  The goal should be to learn how to clone individual organs for transplant.

I cannot condone the murder of innocents to gain stem cells for research.  If they can be obtained in a different method, good, if they can't, too bad.

Nano will eventually catch up and be able to do most anythng they hope for stem cells to be able to do.

[vyper]

[q]if they can't, too bad.[/q]

Try living with diabetes, injecting yourself four times a day, testing your blood every day, fearing loss of eyesight and other complications even if you do everything right, and then tell me it's too bad that stem cell research shouldn't be allowed if it breaches your definition of human life.

Nature will always find a way - it might hurt, it might be violent, nature will find a way. We are part of nature, we have found a way to find cures to diseases like diabetes.

[Clave]

I might venture an opinion.....having been married and divorced, and now living happily in so-called 'sin'....

Sex is great, but can also be terrible - try before you buy.  

If you want a document to say that you are a couple, then fine, if not, also fine.

How many marriages end in divorce?

Unmarried couples, and even singles are capable of bringing up children.

Love and sex are both seperate and together, sometimes you have one without the other, but both together is the best thing.  So, if you really love someone, you should not wait until after the wedding before finding out that you hate each other sexually.  It's unfair, simply as that...

Oh, and try to keep religion out of the life of you and your partner, it only causes trouble.

I'm sure this one will run and run

[Mongoose]

Hey, guess what Kazan:  couples who cohabit before marriage have a much higher instance of divorce than those who first have sex after marriage.  Hmmm, I wonder why that is?  

And by the way, everyone, not only fundamentalist Christians feel that sex before marriage is wrong.  I'm a Catholic, and that's what I feel as well.  Sex serves two purposes:  the union of the husband and wife in the ultimate expression of love, and the procreation of new life.  Taking either one out of the equation nullifies the whole purpose of marriage.  01010, sex is not a sin:  it's the ultimate expression of love, the ultimate revealing of a man and woman to each other.  A child is not a "punishment" of every sort; it is the joining of man and woman in the very act of creation.  When the egg and sperm meet, a new and separate human entity has been brought into the world.  Fully human, from the beginning.  Is this viewpoint so hard to understand?  (Kazan, I'm not bothering to ask you; you've already proven so.)  If sex is the ultimate expression of love, shouldn't it be reserved for the ultimate commitment of two people to each other, marriage?  If the act of conception is so unique, and so special, shouldn't the fertilized egg be treated with the utmost respect, instead of as a "mass of cells"?  What happened to the time when a pregnancy was seen as a great gift, instead of an "inconvenience"?  I'll tell you when:  when our overly hedonistic, self-indulgent, selfish culture decided that sex was "recreational," instead of something to be treated with great respect.

Kazan, within four more years from now, we will have a Supreme Court that actually follows by the dictates of the Constitution, instead of fabricating some right to "privacy" and extending that to someone's body.  Guess what:  in a pregancy, there aren't just two concerns, there are three.  And, since I think we all agree that the continuation of the species is so important, shouldn't even the barest "potential" of new human life be treated as something important?

P.S.  To all those talking about pregnancy ruining a woman's entire life, ever hear about adoption?  If a mother/couple knows she/they can't give a good home to her/their child, adoption is a true show of love for that child.  Tens of thousands of couples out there are looking to adopt; is it too much of a sacrifice to give the unborn child, and a childless couple, a lifetime of happiness?  Funny, all you pro-murder (I'm fed up with this "anti-choice" BS) people seem to completely ignore adoption, don't you?  Admit it:  it has nothing to do with the well-being of the woman; you just want to keep having sex without ever once thinking of the consequences.  Real good sign of maturity, there.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Mongoose
Hey, guess what Kazan:  couples who cohabit before marriage have a much higher instance of divorce than those who first have sex after marriage.  Hmmm, I wonder why that is?  

this statement is totally and completely false

And by the way, everyone, not only fundamentalist Christians feel that sex before marriage is wrong.  I'm a Catholic, and that's what I feel as well.

1st) catholicism is a form of fundamentalist chrisitanity
2nd) this statement is completely ethnocentric shows that you're ignorant to the reality of the world (see: hinduism, most other non-abrahamic religions)

Sex serves two purposes:  the union of the husband and wife in the ultimate expression of love, and the procreation of new life.

italicized content only part that's relevant and pertinant - rest of statement is irrelevant opinion demonstrative of reductionism

Taking either one out of the equation nullifies the whole purpose of marriage.

irrelevant

01010, sex is not a sin:  it's the ultimate expression of love, the ultimate revealing of a man and woman to each other.

this statement is indicative of homophobism

A child is not a "punishment" of every sort; it is the joining of man and woman in the very act of creation.

and they have the right to choose not to create - and choosing thus doesn't require them not to engage in intercourse

When the egg and sperm meet, a new and separate human entity has been brought into the world.

WRONG it is completely and totally biologically dependant upons it's mothers body, and does not have consciouness of it's own -- this statement is indicative of religious ethnocentrism because it requires your religious belief of a "soul" to validate

Got news for you: YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR RELIGION, SO ALL RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS ARE UNSUPPORTED

Fully human, from the beginning.  Is this viewpoint so hard to understand?

The capability to understand a viewpoint does not require one find it factual - your viewpoint is religious and therefore legally irrelevant

to pass laws based only on religious belief qualifies as religious persecution.   You so want to deprive others of the right to be free from religious persecution: should i take the same doctrine with you?

Since you do not believe others should be free from your religious persecution should I persecute you?

(Kazan, I'm not bothering to ask you; you've already proven so.)

Resorting to personal insults eh? I understand your entire argument, down to the very foundations, which you yourself do not.

If sex is the ultimate expression of love, shouldn't it be reserved for the ultimate commitment of two people to each other, marriage?

no: because you can have love outside marriage

If the act of conception is so unique, and so special, shouldn't the fertilized egg be treated with the utmost respect, instead of as a "mass of cells"?

the false part of this statement is "act of conception is so unique" -- all that follows from an invalid anticedant is invalid

What happened to the time when a pregnancy was seen as a great gift, instead of an "inconvenience"?  I'll tell you when:  when our overly hedonistic, self-indulgent, selfish culture decided that sex was "recreational," instead of something to be treated with great respect.

demogaguery - pointless and irrevelant and utterly devoid of facts

Kazan, within four more years from now, we will have a Supreme Court that actually follows by the dictates of the Constitution,

Yeah, George Bush will not be president

the patriot act will be overturned, the unconstitutional extensions of copyright laws will be overturned, the unconstitutional abridgements of fair use rights will be overturned, the unconstitutional Department of Faith-Based Iniatives will be abolished, the unconstitutional school-vouchers programs shall be abolished

 instead of fabricating some right to "privacy" and extending that to someone's body.

This statement is so devoid of knowledge of constitutional law that it would take an entire book to address it

  Guess what:  in a pregancy, there aren't just two concerns, there are three.  And, since I think we all agree that the continuation of the species is so important, shouldn't even the barest "potential" of new human life be treated as something important?

no - because a single conception is not important - only aggregate conception rates.

P.S.  To all those talking about pregnancy ruining a woman's entire life, ever hear about adoption?

A) Requires her to carry the child to term thus violating the Bad Samaritan Doctrine
B) more children are put up for adoption each year than adopted
C) the foster care system is horrendous

 Funny, all you pro-murder

you cannot call it such a term : murder is only the termination of a life of an INDIVIDUAL

(I'm fed up with this "anti-choice" BS)

THEN STOP BEING IT - You are trying to force your religious opinion down the throats of others with force of law - that is not only unconstitutional, it is a violation of everything that is American

people seem to completely ignore adoption, don't you?

No: we just know that it's not only not a perfect system, it's not even an acceptable system - all superceeded by the fact that it violates the mothers right to bodily integrity to force her to carry the child to term

 Admit it:  it has nothing to do with the well-being of the woman; you just want to keep having sex without ever once thinking of the consequences.  Real good sign of maturity, there.

Once again with the lame personal insults and demogaguery completely and utterly devoid of fact

[Mongoose]

Nope...that would be you

P.S.  Lots of other sources on Google if you discredit that one for some unknown reason.

[01010]

Originally posted by Mongoose

01010, sex is not a sin:  it's the ultimate expression of love, the ultimate revealing of a man and woman to each other.  A child is not a "punishment" of every sort; it is the joining of man and woman in the very act of creation.  When the egg and sperm meet, a new and separate human entity has been brought into the world.  Fully human, from the beginning.  Is this viewpoint so hard to understand?  (Kazan, I'm not bothering to ask you; you've already proven so.)  If sex is the ultimate expression of love, shouldn't it be reserved for the ultimate commitment of two people to each other, marriage?  If the act of conception is so unique, and so special, shouldn't the fertilized egg be treated with the utmost respect, instead of as a "mass of cells"?  What happened to the time when a pregnancy was seen as a great gift, instead of an "inconvenience"?  I'll tell you when:  when our overly hedonistic, self-indulgent, selfish culture decided that sex was "recreational," instead of something to be treated with great respect.
 

Get this ****nut cause I'm through explaining to you retards. I AM NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO ANY RELIGION, I DO NOT FOLLOW THE SAME MORAL CODE AS YOU, I DO NOT EVER INTEND TO MARRY AS I DO NOT SEE IT IN THE SAME LIGHT AS YOU.

I'm glad I spelled that out for you, now, why do you ****ers assume that there is no respect for sex? In my case, I adore my G/F, I love her to bits, what difference would a ****ing piece of paper make to that? A little ring and a church service have NOTHING to do with love, they are purely symbolic for your chosen religion, which is neither mine nor my other half's religion.

The problem here is that YOU view conception and childbirth as a miracle, I view it as a complete waste of ****ing time, you are trying to force your views on others.

Also, if you can seriously think that a couple that have been together for four years do not have respect for each other both mentally, physically and sexually without being married then you are deluded.