DJA wrote:
Christian Seberino wrote:
On Mon, March 26, 2007 4:16 pm, Gabriel Sechan wrote:
As the only option, no it can't satisfy it. Not even close. A one
shot
"til death to you part" chance to get it right does not satisfy the
problem.
Yes being married to the wrong person would be a bad thing. We certainly
have to be careful about who we marry and yes there is a risk in it. Is
the alternative any better? There is risk in getting married but
there is
risk in being intimate with someone without a commitment too. Avoiding
marriage doesn't protect you from risk.
And that risk is what again? And don't bring up anything that has a
biological basis because being married (or not) has no direct causal
relationship with biology.
Many people in this country have
tried the sex without marriage route and it generally works pretty
well.
I think they'd prefer to be born into a home with married parents.
Don't
you?
Quite frankly, no. If the parents don't love one another, they'll
have a
better, happier home life with a single parent. I support child
support
laws to help fiscally raise the children, but a single parent home
is far
better than a house where parents are forced together because of a
mistake
made a decade ago, leaving everyone unhappy.
I think you are correctly pointing out a risk inherent in marriage. You
agree there is also risk & problems inherent in a society without
marriage? If the risk with marriage is being "stuck", the opposite
problem
with no marriage is people leaving too quickly without really trying to
work things out. As I said above, there is risk both ways.
Chris
The basic fallacy with your argument seems to be an assumption that
people either don't change, or that if they do change, then at least
if they are in a relationship (the formal version - marriage - seeming
to be the only relationship you accept as valid), they will both
change in the same direction.
Sorry. In the real world that just does not seem to be the norm. And
if marriage were not a government-sanctioned institution (i.e. one
needs official permission to both marry and unmarry) I suspect we
would see a huge decrease in marriage-related dysfunctional behavior.
And just to cover cases, a child support requirement is not a function
of marriage, its a function of biology.
No, his "fallacy" (if it can even be called that) is that the Bible (in
one place) depicts marriage as a union of two people in similar fashion
as the union of two oxen that are yoked together to pull a common load.
The Bible instructs us to not be unequally yoked together with
non-believers, just as it was not wise to yoke together a strong ox with
a weak one. The pair have to have nearly equal strength and because of
the yoke, must maintain ultimately equal direction. The oxen don't have
the right to say "Hey, I don't like this direction. I'm going to go
this way." But as far as I know, no ox has ever tried to. (Sometimes,
animals are smarter than humans. ;-) ) As the oxen move, there is
not complete unity in direction, as there are occasional leanings in
opposite directions which do affect the other. But the opposition by
the other, with the aid of the yoke, helps them both to maintain a
common coarse.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
