Depending on which Christian Sect you belong to

Post #135,815 by boxley 1/14/04 10:00:23 PM Reply	Depending on which Christian Sect you belong to and which sect you married under that may or may not be correct. Most Christian Sects have an obligation to have children, like the Catholics for example. It is a sin for them to use any sort of birth control except the rythm method. I dont know which sect you are with so cant discuss theology on it unless you want to continue in Religion. If you are the product of a State marriage it is a tax sham nothing more. Marriage is a religious thing that the States got invovlved with over monetary disposition. Since the advent of DNA and current contract law there is no rational for the state to be in the marriage business anymore, the laws simply need to be used correctly. A general power of attourney and a good will serves most of what civil benefits marriage gets. The other items like medical equality, survivorship of social security benifits need to be changed to reflect society as it currently exists. Again I cannot debate with your theology since I dont know your affiliation and your feelings on remaining childless are your's and valid but again, marriage is a religious act (which was the object of doc's post) and Most normal religions demand children to be reproduced. More fodder for the mill so to speak. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #135,819 by Nightowl 1/14/04 10:09:38 PM 1/14/04 10:12:21 PM Reply	Re: Depending on which Christian Sect you belong to and which sect you married under that may or may not be correct. Most Christian Sects have an obligation to have children, like the Catholics for example. It is a sin for them to use any sort of birth control except the rythm method. I dont know which sect you are with so cant discuss theology on it unless you want to continue in Religion. I know for a fact that the religion I practice does not require children, at least from the teachings of my old church, it was not ever stated as such. I'm not sure we married under any sect. I had my old preacher come up and perform the service at an entirely different church, but it was still considered a Christian marriage ceremony. So we are not the product of a State marriage. Again I cannot debate with your theology since I dont know your affiliation and your feelings on remaining childless are your's and valid but again, marriage is a religious act (which was the object of doc's post) and Most normal religions demand children to be reproduced. More fodder for the mill so to speak. The only title I know for my affiliation was Christian. I belonged to 4th Christian Church. The church I currently attend isn't my exact affiliation, it's Baptist, but I'm there for the time being. My church closed, and the current one is where I've wound up for now for a number of reasons. I don't choose to debate my theology, because I am dealing with my own issues about it still, and I don't feel that any of you would understand that. Nightowl >8# EDIT: P.S.This quote from the thread by Ross (Marriage should be primarily about raising children with one father and one mother.) is the part I was dealing with, nothing else, and my argument is simply that I disagree that marriage should be primarily about children. "It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman "Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley Edited by Nightowl Jan. 14, 2004, 10:12:21 PM EST Expand All History
Post #135,821 by boxley 1/14/04 10:17:48 PM Reply	No need to debate your religion at all just wanted to make my point that marriage is a religious ceremony not a state function and most christian sects require kids. No more no less my point supports doc that marriage in the main requires children being tended by the birth mother and impregnating father in a family structure. Having kids outside of that structure is harmful to the kids. Your comment that marriage has nothing to do with kids is your opinion but not the opinion of the major christian faiths in america, or muslim or moonies for that matter. Marriage is a religious function not a state function so your comment that parenting is not part of marriage is refuted by the major religions. You are wrong thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #135,822 by Nightowl 1/14/04 10:22:50 PM Reply	That isn't quite what I said I don't recall saying the exact statement "marriage has nothing to do with kids", I said it wasn't dependent upon having children, that you could have a successful marriage without kids. I also do not recall saying the exact statement "parenting is not part of marriage" I believe I said it did not have to be, not that it wasn't. If I said either of these exact statements, exactly as you presented them, please show me where. I don't consider myself wrong on this issue, it's how I believe and my opinion on it, therefore it isn't right or wrong, it's right or wrong for me. Thanks. Nightowl >8# "It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman "Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
Post #135,826 by Another Scott 1/14/04 10:49:39 PM Reply	So infertile people shouldn't be able to marry? (new thread) Created as new thread #135825 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=135825\|So infertile people shouldn't be able to marry?]
Post #135,857 by Silverlock 1/15/04 8:58:10 AM Reply	On Catholic birth control Most Christian Sects have an obligation to have children, like the Catholics for example. It is a sin for them to use any sort of birth control except the rythm method. Question: What do you call women who rely on the rhythm method? Answer: Mothers. ----------------------------------------- "After months of searching and billions of dollars, we've finally captured the man who had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 !" -Rob Cordry, The Daily Show
Post #135,864 by hnick 1/15/04 9:40:22 AM Reply	Re: On Catholic birth control The Irish have a Pope sanctioned birth control pill. It weights 2 tons. The wife rolls it up against the bedroom door and the husband can't get in...
Post #135,866 by ben_tilly 1/15/04 10:18:28 AM Reply	State marriages are more than a tax sham Like it or not, society gives a lot of weight to the word "married". And most people react to outward symbols of marriage (eg rings). Furthermore, most people have an emotional reaction when those symbols apply personally. The magnitude of this effect shocked me after I got married. The reality of this effect is why I believe that marriage matters for people no matter how religious they are or aren't. It is a label. It shouldn't matter. I can argue that until I'm blue in the face. But I'm human and irrational and the point of fact is that it does make a difference that equivalent legal arrangements can't. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #135,942 by boxley 1/15/04 6:37:44 PM Reply	marriage matters to whom? Could you define a little further please? Like it or not, society gives a lot of weight to the word "married". And most people react to outward symbols of marriage (eg rings). Furthermore, most people have an emotional reaction when those symbols apply personally. If I am understanding this statement you think exactly "what" reactions are gotten when a marriage partnership is perceived people dont hit on your "wife" makes you think she is chaste, chaste is a religious value not a fashion statement people dont think you are "gay" shouldnt matter what other people think Need better definition to the statement otherwise I think marriage==people think you might have a set of values defined by religion as opposed to being religious==pretnding to be religious to fit in (although you are very straightforward when speaking of your positions on religion) thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #135,996 by ben_tilly 1/15/04 9:30:47 PM Reply	Immediate respect At 21 when I said, "my wife", most people that I met responded with a lot more respect for the relationship than they would if I had said "my girlfriend", "my live-in girlfriend", etc. Despite my age, people recognized and reacted to the label. I admit that some of the respect is that people would see the ring and not hit on us. (Random note: gays seem less deterred by a ring than heterosexuals. I've been told that that is because a lot of gays get married so to avoid discrimination, but intend all along to continue acting gay.) As someone who didn't want to deal with being hit on, it was nice to reduce that stress. Nothing there about feeling that she was chaste or not chaste. It just reduced the amount of stress, and is nice to have constant recognition that the world knows that I am in a committed relationship. Similarly the label had an emotional impact on me. The level of commitment with marriage is much higher, and I felt myself react to that. One change was that this allowed me to engage on more difficult levels because I worried less about the other person leaving and more about the relationship. A note that I should make. I come from a family that regards marriage less seriously than most do. First of all I wasn't raised to be particularly religious. Second, many close relatives have gone through multiple marriages, and cynically view them as temporary. Third, more than a couple of relatives viewed my marriage as temporary. But even with a background that I would have thought would make me not react to being married, I had a surprisingly strong reaction. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #136,004 by boxley 1/15/04 9:44:25 PM Reply	wondered if that was it Similarly the label had an emotional impact on me. The level of commitment with marriage is much higher, and I felt myself react to that. One change was that this allowed me to engage on more difficult levels because I worried less about the other person leaving and more about the relationship. roped and tied I agree with that emotion. But the reason you had this emotion and why other people react is to the vestige of religious "dont touch a married woman". Just because you arnt personally religious doesnt mean the vestige of the religious thoughts on the matter in society at large didnt affect you subliminally. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]

Welcome to IWETHEY!