Marriage and it's supposed sanctity

[vidcc]

J2 i haven't said you missed the point of the thread, i was waiting for you to join it.

I really hate to intrude on your thread with tough questions, but you know how I am.

what's tough about the questions?


Not sure why you think that i am lightening "accidental pregnancy"...... in this day and age contraception is widely available and many, but not all, pregnancies can be avoided. Sometimes even with contraception accidents happen.

I know the arguement of abstinance being the only 100% protection however again i think that goes against what is sacred in marriage. The absinance approach being a "moral" theory..... i don't think that having sex if one is an adult is immoral...even outside wedlock. This does of course mean that if one does partake then one has to accept responsibility for any possible outcome.

This is where you and I part company.

I am pro choice even though i would never make that choice myself. (i would like to steer clear of the abortion debate please as this thread has already been hijacked once) But then even married people have abortions.
I would not consider it a "family value" to push 2 people together that had a one night stand that resulted in a baby. To me this is turning marriage into a punishment instead of a commitment.

If they both decide to have said child and both wish to be involved as parents they can choose to do so without being married.

But then there is also the point that to me a "marriage" is the life and not the ceromony that makes it official.

i know of many people that live together out of wedlock and their relationships are shining examples of what marriage should be.
They endure the judgemental "well they can just walk away" comments from married couples that IMO don't have as good a "marriage" even with the paperwork.

[vidcc]

When was this thread hijacked.

The first question asked (after the gay marriage disclaimer) was "What is the sanctity of marriage? "

The discussions here have been in relation to that subject, so how was it hijacked.

already covered that, reworded, and cleared it up....next question?

[vidcc]

What's that supposed to mean. People were on topic throughout. The fact that you may have subsequently made a post, which said that they were not talking about what you had originally intended is irrelevant.

There was no spam to speak of and people were having a sensible discussion. So once again, when was it hijacked. Perhaps an answer this time.

If you don't like the answer that's your problem. The thread was cleared up..it is about the sanctity of the "Marriage" not the meaning of the term, it is about the way marriage is conducted, not the vow to god...yet that continued to be the debate even after it was cleared up.

As i said before, if anyone misses the point i will galdly clear up any misunderstanding...... if they then decide that they haven't missed the point I made and decide to follow the point they think i made then they are hijacking and going off direction.

look back and read the original post...there was more than just one line, it was devoted to making the point about what is breaking the meaning of what marriage is supposed to be in its "sacredness" (i have cleared that element up)

Hobbes picked up on it very clearly



if you wish to join that debate i welcome your views

[Rat Faced]

You have to have something like the Royal Perogative or the Executive Order, otherwise a country cannot react quickly enough to some events.

Its the misuse of these powers that i object to.

ie: The concentration of too much power in one persons/parties hands.

The Head of State should be a Titular Position, with no real power other than being able to force an election and react to events threatening the nation...

Governing should be left to the Prime Minister and Parliament.. accountability, although much slower. To give the PM the powers of the Head of State too, which he currently employs.. means that he can bypass Parliament when he feels like it. Just like GW does in Washington with his Executive Orders.

Your way, is basically electing an Absolute Leader for a period of time... I dont like Absolutes.

[vidcc]

Who is it you think you are exactly. People discuss things the way they wish to, not the way you direct them to. As long as it is not spam, or offensive then it is not a problem. The fact that you started the thread is irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of where it naturally progresses to.

there is a difference between natural progression and not discussing the original point at all.

If you wish to further hijack and argue more please start your own thread

[vidcc]

You have to have something like the Royal Perogative or the Executive Order, otherwise a country cannot react quickly enough to some events.

Its the misuse of these powers that i object to.

ie: The concentration of too much power in one persons/parties hands.

The Head of State should be a Titular Position, with no real power other than being able to force an election and react to events threatening the nation...

Governing should be left to the Prime Minister and Parliament.. accountability, although much slower. To give the PM the powers of the Head of State too, which he currently employs.. means that he can bypass Parliament when he feels like it. Just like GW does in Washington with his Executive Orders.

Your way, is basically electing an Absolute Leader for a period of time... I dont like Absolutes.

stop it rat

[j2k4]

So then, the upshot of all of this is that the institution of marriage, with all of it's accoutrements, religious and/or otherwise, has no righteous or tangible value to any other than religious types, and no one apart from religious types could/would/should have any objection whatsoever if the union and all rights thereto were extended to any and all, so long as their reasons for seeking such a union are of a strictly secular nature?

Ought to be interesting when the shepherd/sheep lobby, et. al., step to the plate...

[vidcc]

So then, the upshot of all of this is that the institution of marriage, with all of it's accoutrements, religious and/or otherwise, has no righteous or tangible value to any other than religious types, and no one apart from religious types could/would/should have any objection whatsoever if the union and all rights thereto were extended to any and all, so long as their reasons for seeking such a union are of a strictly secular nature?

Ought to be interesting when the shepherd/sheep lobby, et. al., step to the plate...

No.... i am not religious and i am argueing that marriage is being demoted by those that take it frivilously. I have however probably hit a nerve because i made a point of saying that some (not all) people of faith are just as responsible for this as those with no faith.

As to the objection bit to it being extended to all, who said only religious "types" could have an objection?.

That said i think it should be extended to all..... as long as it is taken with the seriousness it is supposed to have

[Rat Faced]

stop it rat

I have no idea how that post appeared in this thread

[j2k4]

No.... i am not religious and i am argueing that marriage is being demoted by those that take it frivilously. I have however probably hit a nerve because i made a point of saying that some (not all) people of faith are just as responsible for this as those with no faith.

As to the objection bit to it being extended to all, who said only religious "types" could have an objection?.

That said i think it should be extended to all..... as long as it is taken with the seriousness it is supposed to have

You have contended (in your own roundabout way) that the only people who would object to sharing the term marriage do so on religious grounds, and whose opinions on the matter are therefore of no account.

Right?