church against reduction of vat on condoms !!

Asiaprod

Guys, enough. You want to debate euthanasia, start a new thread. There are pros and cons to euthanasia.
Asia.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Their is a huge difference between lust and love. Try to understand this. I LOVE my wife, I DO NOT lust after her. This is quite insulting to all Christians.

You don't find your wife sexually arousing nor do you desire to have sex with her??

I'm sure you are great hit on Valentine's day BC :eek:

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Sex before marriage - rescue many young people from the emotional scars of giving themselves to someone idiot who doesn't deserve the.

Yes, because no one has ever married an idiot who didn't deserve them .... oh wait, they have

Whats that you say, you won't end up marrying and idiot who doesn't deserve you if you just take care and be sensible in who you marry?

Well that applies equally well to sex and premarital relationships.

Given the option of a naive woman having sex with someone who turns out to be an idiot and a naive woman marrying said idiot so she can have sex with him because she is taught that that you should marry someone if you want to be with them, I will take the former over the latter any day.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Think of the children who would grow up in a stable household instead of being born to a single Mom.

Or think of the children who grow up in unstable households where the parents hate each other because they got married too young without any proper understanding of relationships because their church told them it was sinful to gain this experience before you are married.

This goes back to the idea that you seem to hold on to that there is no such thing as an unstable married household (or a stable unmarried household), or no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy within a marriage.

Both those ideas are nonsense myths.

BrianCalgary

One of th ejoys that I have in life is the opportunity to coach minor soccer. Both boys and girls, teenagers. The teams that I currently coach are GU18 and BU16.

Over the last 5 years of coaching I have probably coached in the neighbourhood of 100 kids.

It is a pretty good cross section of kids and families in Calgary.

Some observations: The homes with married parents have the married couple as being stable and solid. So wicknight don't come across as having the opinion that the majority of marriages involve an unloving fighting couple.

The kids from these homes are well-adjusted and have a very good confident demeanour about them.

As for the kids from the broken homes, the kids tend to lack self confidence and they act in such a way as to show the pain they are carrying inside as a result of the broken marriage.

In the case of the girls they have a tendency to be a bot boy crazy, because Dad is not around.

So wicknight, no , I know full well that all marriages are not all rosy, but I do know that the vast majority of marriages are rosy. Two loving parents that get along, put their kids first and sacrifice n behalf of those kids.

AND I do NOT lust after my wife, I love my wife. There is a differnce which makes me quite fun on any day, don't need Valentine's.

djpbarry

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Over the last 5 years of coaching I have probably coached in the neighbourhood of 100 kids.

Having played soccer myself for several years myself at schoolboy level, I cannot believe for one second that you became so intimately involved with every single set of parents as to be able to determine whether or not their relationship was a healthy one. Unless of course soccer coaching in Canada is very different to what it is in Ireland!

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The kids from these homes are well-adjusted and have a very good confident demeanour about them.

As for the kids from the broken homes, the kids tend to lack self confidence and they act in such a way as to show the pain they are carrying inside as a result of the broken marriage.

In your opinion. In MY opinion, this is ridiculously general.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

...I do know that the vast majority of marriages are rosy.

Absolute horse ****.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Two loving parents that get along, put their kids first and sacrifice n behalf of those kids.

And unmarried parents don't do this because?

BrianCalgary

djpbarry wrote: »

Having played soccer myself for several years myself at schoolboy level, I cannot believe for one second that you became so intimately involved with every single set of parents as to be able to determine whether or not their relationship was a healthy oneUnless of course soccer coaching in Canada is very different to what it is in Ireland!.?

Probably is. I do get to know most of the parents quite well. We don't play schoolboy soccer, we play minor soccer. My sons club has abot 3,000 kids for the outdoor season. My daughters club is about half that. The set-up dictates that parents are involved, as each has to volunteer time at the club.

djpbarry wrote: »

In your opinion. In MY opinion, this is ridiculously general.?

No it is observed beahaviours, in the social set that I mentioned. On what do you base your opinion on?

djpbarry wrote: »

And unmarried parents don't do this because?

Usually because there is an unmarried parent, or uncommited parent, not parents.

In the case of single parent homes, the single parent is very sacrificial and supportive of their kids, yet the other parent is absolutely no where to be seen. Always seems to be the guy who is nowhere to be seen so, in the end, he had promiscuous sex, was lustful, withour love and now look at the situation, a teenager without a Dad and a struggling loving mother.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It is a pretty good cross section of kids and families in Calgary.

Where the heck do you live Brian, because where ever it is it always seems to provide plenty of anecdotally support for what ever you are arguing that day. All the Christian kids come from happy stable homes, the homosexuals all start crying on your shoulder at the drop of a hat about how horrible being gay is, church attendance is increasing and making people happier etc etc

I jest of course

Anyway back to the points at hand...

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The homes with married parents have the married couple as being stable and solid. So wicknight don't come across as having the opinion that the majority of marriages involve an unloving fighting couple.

Well leaving aside that if they weren't stable and solid you probably would have no clue considering the lengths couples can go to to hide internal problems from the outside world, particularly in communities that judge other families to certain moral standards, I didn't actually claim that the majority of marriage involve an unloving fighting couple.

I have no idea if the majority of marriage do or do not involve this. Canada has a divorce rate of 37%, but you can't really infer from that those who remain together are actually happy, again particularly if the belong to a group or community where separating or getting divorced would be frowned upon.

But again that wasn't my point.

My point was that waiting for marriage offers absolutely no extra protection against picking an mean person. In fact waiting to have your first proper relationship with the person you marry probably greatly increases that risk, as you end up with people who have little proper experience with relationships living with a partner for the first time after they are married. And that is normally when you find out what the person is really like. But if you are married and part of a community that puts pressure not to get divorced, you are stuck.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

As for the kids from the broken homes, the kids tend to lack self confidence and they act in such a way as to show the pain they are carrying inside as a result of the broken marriage.

And the kids from non-broken but not married homes ... ?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Two loving parents that get along, put their kids first and sacrifice n behalf of those kids.

Funny that there is no part of that sentence that actually requires marriage ...

BrianCalgary wrote: »

AND I do NOT lust after my wife, I love my wife. There is a differnce which makes me quite fun on any day, don't need Valentine's.

Well as I asked are you saying you do not find your wife sexually arousing?

Because that is what "lust" is BC, sexual desire for another person.

Love is certainly different to lust, and I would certainly be worried about someone confusing lust for love.

But equally I would be concerned about someone who didn't lust as well as love after someone they were in a relationship with. Platonic love is all very well but a healthy sex life is ... well ... healthy.

Lust and love are not mutually exclusive

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I do know that the vast majority of marriages are rosy.

So why do 40% end up in the divorce courts?

djpbarry

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I do get to know most of the parents quite well.

I'm sure you do, but I doubt very much that they disclose the intimacies of their marriages to you. Don't get me wrong, based on my experience, Canada is a wonderful, friendly country, but I don't remember people being THAT friendly.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No it is observed beahaviours, in the social set that I mentioned. On what do you base your opinion on?

Well, that is precisely the point. It's YOUR opinion based on what YOU have seen, or rather what you have interpreted. Based on my experience, how a particular child "turns out" depends on a variety of factors. Seeing as a young child has no concept of marriage, I fail to see how this could be an influence. I would say personality traits are most likely inherited from the parents, while behavioural characteristics are probably learned during the course of their development.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Usually because there is an unmarried parent, or uncommited parent, not parents.

My brother has no intention of getting married, but he and his girlfriend love their daughter dearly, as do both their families. If they do decide to marry, it will have little bearing on their child's development.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Always seems to be the guy who is nowhere to be seen so, in the end, he had promiscuous sex, was lustful, withour love and now look at the situation, a teenager without a Dad and a struggling loving mother.

Yes, that is exactly what happens when unmarried couples have kids :rolleyes:.

Do you have anything other than anecdotes to support your position?

PDN

djpbarry wrote: »

My brother has no intention of getting married, but he and his girlfriend love their daughter dearly, as do both their families. If they do decide to marry, it will have little bearing on their child's development.

djpbarry wrote:

Do you have anything other than anecdotes to support your position?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Groan

Have you never heard of an exception disproving the rule.

BC is assertion a generality. He is supporting that with anecdotal evidence.

djpbarry simply has to provide one alternative to show BC's assertion does not hold in all cases. Which he did. djpbarry's example doesn't demonstrate anything about anyone else, but it does demonstrate that BC's assertion doesn't hold in all cases.

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Ah no, as always you entirely missed my point. I am placing the portion of the blame due the catholic church right at its feet. The Roman Catholic Churches position on many things cause hardship in this world. For example:

Homosexuality
Abortion
Sex before marriage
Birth Control
Euthanasia

In fact, reading that list back, it seems that the Catholic church is utterly obsessed with sex. Not a new statement strangely enough.

Hang on here, I don't believe the Catholic Church are responsible for this. The situation would be as bad with or without the Catholic Church. I actually know that many Christian organisations in Africa are building AIDS hospitals and sufficent centres to help provide medication. If you are going to blame the Christian Church you might as well look at the great deal they are doing, and the great deal they have done in fighting leprosy also. I don't know of any secular organisation that has helped to tackle so many problems in the modern world.

As for the role of sex that's interesting. However sex is such a major thing in the Western World so the Church (in general) has to try and tackle this on the same measure as it exists within society. I think in society there is a large emphasis on it, so the Church has to follow suit. The same if stealing got out of hand on the same scale.

Also I think that abortion in itself causes enough problems in the world on it's own.

I think birth control is only acceptable in marital situations.

Sex before marriage often causes hurt on it's own. Infact when a relationship develops into a sexual one and one person regards their sexuality as more important than another, and then one in the relationship has sex with someone else. That is rather painful and can contribute to mental pain. Marriage provides protection (in most cases).

Hivemind187 wrote:

If it feels good it is immoral and therefore you get everything you deserve right Jakkass?

There are none so evil minded as those who have the agenda of piety and look down on us in the mud from their pedestal.

I see myself as no better than you or anyone else. However I will deal with this point also. There are plenty of things that feel good, these things are considered immoral as they have a high risk of hurting the feelings of others and the feelings of yourself. Therefore it is better to wait to be within a secure environment in the long run. I see the logic behind the Scriptures.

Hivemind187 wrote:

our morality is utterly meaningless to a virus as is your God and your piety and your soul.

Perhaps meaningless to you given your understanding of what God is. However I believe that God is what is going to give us power to defeat this thing.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Usually because there is an unmarried parent, or uncommited parent, not parents.

In the case of single parent homes, the single parent is very sacrificial and supportive of their kids, yet the other parent is absolutely no where to be seen. Always seems to be the guy who is nowhere to be seen so, in the end, he had promiscuous sex, was lustful, withour love and now look at the situation, a teenager without a Dad and a struggling loving mother.

Considering the exact same thing happens with married people, again how is this in support of marriage being better?

A selfish dad who doesn't care about his kids and partner and wants to sleep around will do that married or not.

Equally a caring dad who does care about his kids and his partner will do so whether married or not.

Your (rather old fashioned) views only hold if one assumes that it is either a choice between happy marriage or single parent-ville

Which in this day and age is nonsense.

djpbarry

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know of any secular organisation that has helped to tackle so many problems in the modern world.

How about the UN? Amnesty International? Oxfam?

Jakkass wrote: »

The same if stealing got out of hand on the same scale.

You are equating sex with stealing?

Jakkass wrote: »

Sex before marriage often causes hurt on it's own. Infact when a relationship develops into a sexual one and one person regards their sexuality as more important than another, and then one in the relationship has sex with someone else. That is rather painful and can contribute to mental pain...

...and can just as easily happen in a marriage.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Sex before marriage often causes hurt on it's own. Infact when a relationship develops into a sexual one and one person regards their sexuality as more important than another, and then one in the relationship has sex with someone else. That is rather painful and can contribute to mental pain. Marriage provides protection (in most cases).

Marriage provides absolutely no protection at all in any of what you just said above.

In fact it probably would end up making things much worse as at its far easier to leave a dead beat boyfriend/girlfriend than a dead beat husband/wife.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Marriage provides absolutely no protection at all in any of what you just said above.

In fact it probably would end up making things much worse as at its far easier to leave a dead beat boyfriend/girlfriend than a dead beat husband/wife.

Marriage provides protection against adultery, among other things.

Of course it's easier to leave a girlfriend than to divorce. That's why you should think seriously about marriage first. It's not just any old decision, it's a life changing decision.

Nevyn

Personally I think the catholic church should not give a flying rip about what price condoms are
they should have faith thier flock will be good christains, and abstain and support them in being such and if not well there is confession.

This thread should be in humanities.
The catholic doctrine of no sex before marriage and no contraception is clear.
Yes the church should only try and influence it's members and not public policy's again this is a topic for humanities.

philologos

Part of the job of the pastor / priest is to guide his / her flock.

BrianCalgary

We are not talking about marriage here, we are talking about the place of sex and a committed couple.

So:

Wicknight wrote: »

Considering the exact same thing happens with married people, again how is this in support of marriage being better?.

We are speaking about sex, not marriage. And the consequences of sex outside of a committed relationship.

Wicknight wrote: »

A selfish dad who doesn't care about his kids and partner and wants to sleep around will do that married or not.

My point exactly, sex ouside of a committed relationship and the consquences.

Wicknight wrote: »

Equally a caring dad who does care about his kids and his partner will do so whether married or not. .

No argument. But the point being the Christian teaching against adultery.

Wicknight wrote: »

Your (rather old fashioned) views only hold if one assumes that it is either a choice between happy marriage or single parent-ville.

Not old-fashioned, timeless and sensible. Imagine two parents living in love and harmony, unselfish and sacrificial toward their kids. And in complete fidelity toward one another. Or do you not think this a good idea?

Wicknight wrote: »

Which in this day and age is nonsense.

What? Two parents living in an harmonious loving relationship, sacrificng their own desires for their kids and remaining faithful to one another, is nonsense?

Hivemind187

BC

straight up ... why is two parents better than one?

Why is a single mother/father unsuitable?

This is what you are suggesting.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Marriage provides protection against adultery, among other things.

No it doesn't.

As your own religion is so found of saying, if a woman thinks of seriously having sex with another man it is adultery even if she doesn't do it. And if the only reason she doesn't do it is because she would lose out financially in a divorce (assuming you actually found out) is that really "protection" against adultery. If your wife doesn't care enough about you to use that as a reason not to have an affair, why is she your wife in the first place?

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course it's easier to leave a girlfriend than to divorce. That's why you should think seriously about marriage first.

But that is where the whole argument falls down, because if people are seriously thinking about their relationship in the first place marriage becomes equally unnecessary.

A person thinking seriously about a non-marriage relationship will have just as much chance as getting right as someone thinking about marriage. A marriage won't give them less of a chance of any of the things they face in a non-marriage relationship.

And equally a person rushing into a non-marriage relationship and end up getting hurt would end up doing the exactly the same with marriage (as any number of young celebs that cross Heat Magazine these days demonstrate).

The argument really isn't that marriage is good, it is that dealing with your relationships in a mature sensible manner is good.

If you are doing that marriage is unnecessary, and equally marriage won't make you do that.

BrianCalgary

Hivemind187 wrote: »

BC

straight up ... why is two parents better than one?.

The child has th eopportunity to witness what a loving relationship looks like. They also get the rearing of both male and female. They recieve the complementary 'styles' (for wont of a better word) of male and female.

Any kid that I have ever had thepleasure of getting to know and deal with craves the nurturing of a mother and the relationship with a father. When one of the two is missing in a househole it is quite easy to tell.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Why is a single mother/father unsuitable?

This is what you are suggesting.

They miss the support of the other parent. Th echild misses the support and love of both male and female.

You bet I'm suggesting it. Why? Because I see it in practice and the results of it on the kids.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We are not talking about marriage here, we are talking about the place of sex and a committed couple.

Well you were talking about "marriage" considering you specifically mentioned it about 10 times in the context of sexual relationships outside of it

If you want to change "marriage" to committed relationship, which includes unmarried couples, I'm fine with that and I would agree 100%

But then we are still talking about sex outside of marriage. And since the end result (stable home with both parents raising a child they both love) is the same, the actual marriage part becomes rather redundent.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We are speaking about sex, not marriage. And the consequences of sex outside of a committed relationship.

No, as I said, we were talking about sex outside of marriage (or before marriage as you guys like to say, as if everyone will eventually end up getting married)

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Not old-fashioned, timeless and sensible. Imagine two parents living in love and harmony, unselfish and sacrificial toward their kids. And in complete fidelity toward one another. Or do you not think this a good idea?

I think it is wonderful. But it doesn't require marriage nor do I think adding marriage to that necessarily improves the situation.

Do you (now) agree with that?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

What? Two parents living in an harmonious loving relationship, sacrificng their own desires for their kids and remaining faithful to one another, is nonsense?

No, the idea that one must be married to do so is nonsense.

An idea which apparently you (now) agree with, since you have swapped "marriage" for "commited relationship"

Do you think sex outside of marriage in a commited relationship is ok?

Hivemind187

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The child has th eopportunity to witness what a loving relationship looks like. They also get the rearing of both male and female. They recieve the complementary 'styles' (for wont of a better word) of male and female.

Any kid that I have ever had thepleasure of getting to know and deal with craves the nurturing of a mother and the relationship with a father. When one of the two is missing in a househole it is quite easy to tell.

They miss the support of the other parent. Th echild misses the support and love of both male and female.

You bet I'm suggesting it. Why? Because I see it in practice and the results of it on the kids.

I wonder how many people you have offended with that.

BC, where, exactly, does this explain that you have to have a marriage certificate in order to be in a good relationship?

Your argument for man/woman is also a red herring since there are plenty of effeminate men and hard-core-butch-women. Surely if a fem/fem or male/male relationship was loving it would provide enough love for the child. Your argument is about love and about the gender roles is it not?

By this line of thinking, the requisite for marriage is irrelevant.

Frankly, your argument doesnt hold a lot of water in reality, Calgary may differ.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Well you were talking about "marriage" considering you specifically mentioned it about 10 times in the context of sexual relationships outside of marriage.?

Marriage as a term of convenience. The importance of defining terms.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you want to change "marriage" to committed relationship, which includes unmarried couples, I'm fine with that and I would agree 100%?

Red Letter day.:p

Wicknight wrote: »

But then we are still talking about sex outside of marriage. And since the end result (stable home with both parents raising a child they both love) is the same, the actual marriage part becomes rather redundent. ?

It can be redundant.

Wicknight wrote: »

No, as I said, we were talking about sex outside of marriage (or before marriage as you guys like to say, as if everyone will eventually end up getting married)?

No committed relationship, no sex.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think it is wonderful. But it doesn't require marriage nor do I think adding marriage to that necessarily improves the situation.

Do you (now) agree with that??

We agree twice in teh same post. :cool:

Wicknight wrote: »

No, the idea that one must be married to do so is nonsense. ?

Not nonsens, I'll explain below.

Wicknight wrote: »

An idea which apparently you (now) agree with, since you have swapped "marriage" for "commited relationship"

Do you think sex outside of marriage in a commited relationship is ok?

My preference is not, however I do know families where the parents never married yet have created a great home for them and their kids.

The good part about being married is that the parents have made a public proclamation of their commitment to one another. The kids have that promise to fall back on to feel secure and not have to worry that mum and dad are going to split.

It is about the kids and providing a loving stable environment for them to grow up in. A place where they are encouraged and nurtured, where they can develop to become th ebest citizens that they can be, and to be a contribution on the people and community that they touch

BrianCalgary

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I wonder how many people you have offended with that.

BC, where, exactly, does this explain that you have to have a marriage certificate in order to be in a good relationship?

Your argument for man/woman is also a red herring since there are plenty of effeminate men and hard-core-butch-women. Surely if a fem/fem or male/male relationship was loving it would provide enough love for the child. Your argument is about love and about the gender roles is it not?

By this line of thinking, the requisite for marriage is irrelevant.

Frankly, your argument doesnt hold a lot of water in reality, Calgary may differ.

Offended? How can someone be offended by suggestion that both male and female have a role to play in the rearing of children?

You are also the one stereotyping male and female. I never suggested anything of the sort. And I dont think thatis relevant in the discussion.

You have not shown how my argument doesn't hole water nor an understanding of the arguemnt.

What exactly is your understanding of my argument?

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

Part of the job of the pastor / priest is to guide his / her flock.

The entire populous of the country is not their flock.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

The kids have that promise to fall back on to feel secure and not have to worry that mum and dad are going to split.

...because married couples never divorce?

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The good part about being married is that the parents have made a public proclamation of their commitment to one another. The kids have that promise to fall back on to feel secure and not have to worry that mum and dad are going to split.

So, I ask you again, what about the 40% divorce rate?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It is about the kids and providing a loving stable environment for them to grow up in. A place where they are encouraged and nurtured, where they can develop to become the best citizens that they can be, and to be a contribution on the people and community that they touch

I can't speak for anybody else, but I certainly know plenty of kids (now grown up), who said they'd have had an easier childhood if their parents had split up.

You are adopting a simplistic black-and-white position -- marriage good, unmarriage bad -- that simply does not exist in the real world, or at least, any part of it that I'm familiar with.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Marriage provides protection against adultery, among other things.

?? Adultery cannot exist without marriage. It's defined by the Vatican as:

The Vatican wrote:

Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. [...]He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based.

So, just to repeat -- adultery means sleeping with somebody who's married, conventionally a woman, but more recently understood to include men too. Without marriage, "adultery" cannot exist.

philologos

I see cheating with a girlfriend to be just as cruel and repulsive as adultery. One has to take into account the feelings of another. Hence the Golden Rule.

djpbarry

BrianCalgary wrote: »

They also get the rearing of both male and female.

So, presumably, you would be against homosexuals raising children, or at least that they are less suitable for the task than heterosexual parents?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Any kid that I have ever had thepleasure of getting to know and deal with craves the nurturing of a mother and the relationship with a father. When one of the two is missing in a househole it is quite easy to tell.

Again, that is a very general statement. I know several people who were raised by a single parent and they have turned out just fine. I think you underestimate people.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No committed relationship, no sex.

While casual sex is not something I would be well-known for myself (I cover my tracks :cool:), I would not think it fair to enforce this belief on others - what people do in their own time is their business.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

...I do know families where the parents never married yet have created a great home for them and their kids.

Finally!

robindch wrote: »

I can't speak for anybody else, but I certainly know plenty of kids (now grown up), who said they'd have had an easier childhood if their parents had split up.

Absolutely.

On that note, there seems to be a general consensus among certain individuals that married parents = good parents, which of course is often not the case.

Jakkass wrote: »

I see cheating with a girlfriend to be just as cruel and repulsive as adultery.

I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I see cheating with a girlfriend to be just as cruel and repulsive as adultery. One has to take into account the feelings of another. Hence the Golden Rule.

The golden rule was around for a long time before christianity tried to claim it as its own. In fact, the golden rule is observed by many other species too, not just humans.

And you're quite right that cheating on a boyfriend/girlfriend is an abominable thing to do. But two unattached people who meet in a nightclub? Are they doing something equivalent to adultery?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

So, I ask you again, what about the 40% divorce rate?I can't speak for anybody else, but I certainly know plenty of kids (now grown up), who said they'd have had an easier childhood if their parents had split up..

Why? Because the parents aren't willing to sacrifice their own selfish desires for the sake of being good pearnts who raise good kids. Marriage is a lifelong commitment of love and sacrifice to the couple, partnet and children, without that the home environment can deteriorate.

robindch wrote: »

You are adopting a simplistic black-and-white position -- marriage good, unmarriage bad -- that simply does not exist in the real world, or at least, any part of it that I'm familiar with.

Isn't it too bad that it doesn't. Are willing to allow our low standard of selfishness to prevail or would you rather push for and encourage a couple to commit to one another for life, make the relationship the number one priority, the family the focus and the raising of the children job 1?

BrianCalgary

djpbarry wrote: »

So, presumably, you would be against homosexuals raising children, or at least that they are less suitable for the task than heterosexual parents?.

Absolutely. In the early 70's the deabte over divorce was raging in Canada. The Christians said no that it owul dlead to disaster for kids. The liberals said oh no it wouldn't, kids are resialiant they'll survive. Well, guess what here we are a generation later and kids of divorced parents are taking up quite a bit of jail space. It has affected kids negatively, the breakdown of the family is a huge factor in the breakdown of our society.

djpbarry wrote: »

Again, that is a very general statement. I know several people who were raised by a single parent and they have turned out just fine. I think you underestimate people..

And so do I, but the kids would have preferred to have a fulltime mom and dad. One of my soccer moms has done an outstanding job of raising her kids. She gives all the credit to God and Christ in helping her do so.

djpbarry wrote: »

While casual sex is not something I would be well-known for myself (I cover my tracks :cool:), I would not think it fair to enforce this belief on others - what people do in their own time is their business..

But you want me to pay for the abortion, and the drugs to treat the STD's that occur?

djpbarry wrote: »

On that note, there seems to be a general consensus among certain individuals that married parents = good parents, which of course is often not the case.
I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

Did not say that. DO NOT put words in my mouth. A stable loving relationship of two parents who are focussed on loving one another and understanding that the marriage, (or common-law or whatever you want to call it :rolleyes:) that involves the giving of oneself to partner and children provides the backbone of society.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Well, guess what here we are a generation later and kids of divorced parents are taking up quite a bit of jail space.

What??

Are you honestly suggesting that if these kids parents had been forced by the state to stay in an unhappy dysfunctional marriages these kids would have turned out not going to jail?

(also what does that have to do with the question about a homosexual couple raising kids?)

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

What??

Are you honestly suggesting that if these kids parents had been forced by the state to stay in an unhappy dysfunctional marriages these kids would have turned out not going to jail?

(also what does that have to do with the question about homosexuals raising kids?)

You are attempting to put words in my mouth, Why do you continually do this to myself and other posters?

No I'm saying that the parents have a responsibility to wake up every day and choose to love each other and commit to their marriages and their families, and to do so over self.

I love the Rotary motto, 'service over self'.

You are also generalising that the broken up marriages were unhappy and dysfunctional. What about the ones where they just didn't love each other anymore and just gave up?

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

But you want me to pay for the abortion, and the drugs to treat the STD's that occur?

Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
?
While the % is still low, to imply casual sex always -> abortions is hardly accurate
Married people can get stis and unwanted pregnancies too

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You are attempting to put words in my mouth, Why do you continually do this to myself and other posters?

No I'm saying that the parents have a responsibility to wake up every day and choose to love each other and commit to their marriages and their families, and to do so over self.

I love the Rotary motto, 'service over self'.

You are also generalising that the broken up marriages were unhappy and dysfunctional. What about the ones where they just didn't love each other anymore and just gave up?

If people who don't love each other are forced to pretend they are and live together, of course they're going to be unhappy. How can you think otherwise?
As for putting words in your mouth,

Well, guess what here we are a generation later and kids of divorced parents are taking up quite a bit of jail space.

is quite clear

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote: »

If people who don't love each other are forced to pretend they are and live together, of course they're going to be unhappy. How can you think otherwise?
As for putting words in your mouth,

is quite clear

Love is a choice. If you didn't love the person why did you marry them in the first place?

You have to wake up every day and look at your partner and just love them.

That is how I think, how can you think otherwise?

Your comment on abortion.
Lame, 18.4% of abortions by married women, Still leaves 83.6% by unmarrieds, that are paid for out of taxpayers pockest and eat up valuable resources for health care dollars. So yes, in the words of Marley, 'mankind is my business'.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

Love is a choice. If you didn't love the person why did you marry them in the first place?

You have to wake up every day and look at your partner and just love them.

That is how I think, how can you think otherwise?

Because they were in love then one day they weren't.
People grow apart. You can't just randomly choose to love someone.
I don't know, maybe a lot of older couples that have a long history together have the deep friendship it takes, but if you are unhappy with someone and it's not reconcilable that's it.

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote: »

Because they were in love then one day they weren't.
People grow apart. You can't just randomly choose to love someone.
I don't know, maybe a lot of older couples that have a long history together have the deep friendship it takes, but if you are unhappy with someone and it's not reconcilable that's it.

It is not a random choice, it is aconscious choice. When I met my wife I didn't love her. I certainly enjoyed her looks.

As we came to know each other better, I decided that I wanted to see her and be with her all the time. She decided the same about me.

It came to a point when we decided to be married because we choose to spend our lives together. I promised to love her all my days. I still do. We have been at it for 22 years. I woke up this morning and looked at her and decided that today I would love her still. She also amazingly enough decides to love me too.

So love is a choice.

I woke up this morning and looked at her and decided that today I would love her still.

Ok. Let's look at it this way - when you woke up this morning did you think "I hardly like this woman anymore, she's completely different from the person I fell in love with and the qualities I loved are gone" and then subsequently decide "well I will love her today anyway" ? That's what we were talking about with the unhappy marriages where people just don't love each other anymore.

It's great and all that yours is working well, but it doesn't remotely speak for anyone else's.

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

It's great and all that yours is working well, but it doesn't remotely speak for anyone else's.

It speaks for mine.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

It speaks for mine.

Alright. 4 down, about a billion to go...

panda100

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Abstinence. That program is working wonders in the US isnt it?

Abstinence will never work in America or any other Capitalist country where sex is in our faces 24/7 .America is a far too sexualised society for an abstinence programme to be succesful. Sex is used to sell everything, its on tv's billboards, music videos everywhere. The role models for young women are the likes of Beyonce and Britney all who flaunt their sexuality and use sex to appeal to the masses.
Abstinence programmes have proved very succesful in Russia, a country which has not reached the capitalist heights of the US.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420071/posts
Since an abstinence program was implemented there in 2005 there has been a decrease in teen pregnancy and std's.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You are attempting to put words in my mouth, Why do you continually do this to myself and other posters?

No I'm saying that the parents have a responsibility to wake up every day and choose to love each other and commit to their marriages and their families, and to do so over self.

I love the Rotary motto, 'service over self'.

You are also generalising that the broken up marriages were unhappy and dysfunctional. What about the ones where they just didn't love each other anymore and just gave up?

A hold on a minute there BC.

You said that since divorce was introduced in 1970s the jails in Canada are full of people from divorced families, asserting a direct link between the introduction of divorce and increase levels of crime cause by that introduction.

Are you now saying you withdraw that assertion or are you standing by it?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Love is a choice. If you didn't love the person why did you marry them in the first place?

That doesn't make any sense. Surely you mean marriage is a choice, a choice a person makes because they love someone.

If love was a choice why would anyone ever have a broken heart? They would simply rationally decide not to love the person any more.

Or do you not believe in broken hearts?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You have to wake up every day and look at your partner and just love them.

I'm sure your wife would be thrilled to know that every day you have to make yourself love her :rolleyes:

Until you make that decision in the morning each day are you saying you don't love her?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense. Surely you mean marriage is a choice, a choice a person makes because they love someone.

2 - If love was a choice why would anyone ever have a broken heart? They would simply rationally decide not to love the person any more.

Or do you not believe in broken hearts??

Yes broken hearts happen. If I love person A, who claims that she loves me and then one day she decides not to love me anymore, then my heart is broken.

So to part 2, a broken heart occurs because one of the two decides no tto love someone anymore.

Wicknight wrote: »

'Im sure your wife would be thrilled to know that every day you have to make yourself love her :rolleyes:

Until you make that decision in the morning each day are you saying you don't love her?

You know what she is thrilled that everyday I get up and I decide to love her. She is thrilled that another human being can make such a coice to sacrifice self in order to give to her.

I am equally amazed how she can also get up everyday and decide to love me, with my moods and selfishness, it is thrilling that she makes a conscious choice everyday to love me, off all people.

As for your last comment, tbh it is pretty stupid. The love I have for my wife is ongoing and growing because I understand that it is a choice. Our personalities are opposite, our love languages are different. It would have been very easy to say years ago, 'she is driving me nuts, I just dont love her anymore, especially when there is cutie A just over there'.

But the Christian teaching is to love her despite her foibles and to recognize and love the person she is and to appreciate the differences and to laugh at them and to work with each other. To understand that marriage is a commitment, an unselfish commitment where the well being and happiness of your partner supercedes your own desires.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

A hold on a minute there BC.

You said that since divorce was introduced in 1970s the jails in Canada are full of people from divorced families, asserting a direct link between the introduction of divorce and increase levels of crime cause by that introduction.

Are you now saying you withdraw that assertion or are you standing by it?

Here you go again wicknight, reading things into what I said and then twisting it. You are one of the most dishonest posters around. Please stop it.

No I said that divorce was introduced in Canada in the early 70's. Christians argued that the children of broken marriages would be harmed without the stability and security of a commited mother and father. Now a generation later (I guess I have to spell out these easy things for you:rolleyes:) we see th ejails full of men who grew up without fathers, becasue divorce allowed fathers to be absent.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

If I love person A, who claims that she loves me and then one day she decides not to love me anymore, then my heart is broken. [...] So to part 2, a broken heart occurs because one of the two decides not to love someone anymore.

I'm really surprised that both you and PDN -- and other christians? -- seem to think that love is something that you consciously turn on and turn off, or consciously decide to do or not to do. Never expected that, I must say.