Pope in favor of getting it on [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 10:35 AM

Interesting.

This is the headline attached to the London Times version of the article I linked above:

Pope Benedict puts body and soul into declaration of love

This is the Los Angeles Times headline:

Pope's First Encyclical Warns Against Casual Sex

This country is full of prudes, even in LA.

So if someone is against just hopping in the sack with anyone you want, without the commitment of a marriage, that makes that person a prude?

I think my wife would take issue with your description of me. ;)

The Pope is right, in the sense that the expression of physical love between man and wife is an earthly image of a heavenly reality; that is, Christ's love for His Church. At least, I think that's what he was alluding to.

mdklatt

1/26/2006, 10:57 AM

So if someone is against just hopping in the sack with anyone you want, without the commitment of a marriage, that makes that person a prude?

It's just interesting that the LA Times headline jumped right on the sin aspect. I got that from Google News, which allows you to find all related stories. There were hundreds of different links for that story, and a number US headlines focused on sin while the international headlines focused on love.

India: "Pope Benedict's edict explores issue of love"

Detroit: "Pope writes: Sex without love deceives"

Seattle: "Pope warns about loveless sex"

Germany: "Benedict's Ode to Love"

NormanPride

1/26/2006, 11:00 AM

American news sucks.

Now my girlfriend the journalist is going to kill me.

Herr Scholz

1/26/2006, 11:04 AM

I don't know why this divine ecstasy physical love can't coexist with contraception. Catholics.

mdklatt

1/26/2006, 11:06 AM

I don't know why this divine ecstasy physical love can't coexist with contraception.

If you can do it without without getting pregnant you'll want to do it for fun. And that's just dirty.

Herr Scholz

1/26/2006, 11:16 AM

Dirty and divine.

NormanPride

1/26/2006, 11:21 AM

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6304484054.01._PE15_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Dirty and Divine?

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 11:33 AM

If you can do it without without getting pregnant you'll want to do it for fun. And that's just dirty.

Yet another reason why I am a Protestant. We believe in sex for fun. :D As long as you're married, of course.

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 11:35 AM

It's just interesting that the LA Times headline jumped right on the sin aspect. I got that from Google News, which allows you to find all related stories. There were hundreds of different links for that story, and a number US headlines focused on sin while the international headlines focused on love.

India: "Pope Benedict's edict explores issue of love"

Detroit: "Pope writes: Sex without love deceives"

Seattle: "Pope warns about loveless sex"

Germany: "Benedict's Ode to Love"

Oh, I see. Yeah, that is interesting. Probably indicative of the general moral state of Western Europe. As bad as things are getting here, they are 100 times worse over there.

skycat

1/26/2006, 11:37 AM

Oh, I see. Yeah, that is interesting. Probably indicative of the general moral state of Western Europe. As bad as things are getting here, they are 100 times worse over there.

Wait, emphasizing the message of love in the pope's comments indicate a general state of moral decay?

mdklatt

1/26/2006, 11:38 AM

Oh, I see. Yeah, that is interesting. Probably indicative of the general moral state of Western Europe.

I see it as indicative of the fact the all the fundamentalists left Europe and ended up here.

As bad as things are getting here, they are 100 times worse over there.

What's so bad about Europe? Do they have high murder rates, high divorce rates, high rates of teenage pregnancy, rampant alcholism, and lots of drug abuse too?

BillyBall

1/26/2006, 11:42 AM

What's so bad about Europe?

Parisians

mdklatt

1/26/2006, 11:43 AM

Parisians

Well, obviously. But what else? :D

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 11:50 AM

Wait, emphasizing the message of love in the pope's comments indicate a general state of moral decay?

Emphasizing the "love" aspect at the expense of the "marriage" aspect, yeah. The two go together.

Herr Scholz

1/26/2006, 11:51 AM

Well, obviously. But what else? :D
No Pat Robertsons? There's a moral man for you.

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 11:53 AM

I see it as indicative of the fact the all the fundamentalists left Europe and ended up here.

What's so bad about Europe? Do they have high murder rates, high divorce rates, high rates of teenage pregnancy, rampant alcholism, and lots of drug abuse too?

Murder rates: don't know
Divorce: yes, along with homosexuality and non-married shacking up
alcoholism and drugs: Are you serious???

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 11:53 AM

No Pat Robertsons? There's a moral man for you.

Hey. Morality index and stupidity index do not correlate. :D Just because the man likes to run his mouth is no indication of his overall lifestyle. He's the living embodiment of the axiom "it's better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it."

Herr Scholz

1/26/2006, 12:06 PM

Morality index and stupidity index do not correlate.
How about morality index and advocating Hugo Chavez's assassination index? Are those mutually exclusive?

Sorry, don't want to highjack the Pontiff's thread. That's a sin in some circles.

mdklatt

1/26/2006, 12:15 PM

Murder rates: don't know
Divorce: yes, along with homosexuality and non-married shacking up
alcoholism and drugs: Are you serious???

As far I'm concerned, as long as people aren't going around killing, stealing, or having babies they can't take care of it's none of my business.

Divorce rates: http://www.divorcereform.org/gul.html

The US is the highest on that list, with Sweden a close second.

Murder rates: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

The US is a helluva lot higher than anywhere in Europe except Northern Ireland. We're not quite as bloodthirsty as the IRA, apparently; something to be proud of.

Teenage birth rate: http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/repcard3e.pdf

The US is almost double the next country on the list, the UK.

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 12:44 PM

As far I'm concerned, as long as people aren't going around killing, stealing, or having babies they can't take care of it's none of my business.

Divorce rates: http://www.divorcereform.org/gul.html

The US is the highest on that list, with Sweden a close second.

Murder rates: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

The US is a helluva lot higher than anywhere in Europe except Northern Ireland. We're not quite as bloodthirsty as the IRA, apparently; something to be proud of.

Teenage birth rate: http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/repcard3e.pdf

The US is almost double the next country on the list, the UK.

Divorce rate is misleading without the corresponding "casual sex" index, or whether people are shacking up as opposed to getting married. As far as the teenage birth rate goes, from perusing the report, I can't tell if they've accounted for population differences or what other socio-economic factors they may have left out. But, as far as I can tell, they did not account for the overall general availability of abortion on demand (which would reduce the live birth rate), or the many countries in Europe who have legalized prostitution, thereby cutting down on the casual sex rate.

But the report has it right on when it talks about the "sexualization" of Western society as being the primary reason why teenage births are up overall.

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 12:49 PM

Okay, I just read the rest of the report. They do specifically say that many of the Northern European nations have reduced their teenage pregnancy rate by relying on more abortions.

That's lovely, isn't it?

:mad:

1stTimeCaller

1/26/2006, 12:50 PM

Divorce rate is misleading without the corresponding "casual sex" index, or whether people are shacking up as opposed to getting married. As far as the teenage birth rate goes, from perusing the report, I can't tell if they've accounted for population differences or what other socio-economic factors they may have left out. But, as far as I can tell, they did not account for the overall general availability of abortion on demand (which would reduce the live birth rate), or the many countries in Europe who have legalized prostitution, thereby cutting down on the casual sex rate.

But the report has it right on when it talks about the "sexualization" of Western society as being the primary reason why teenage births are up overall.

I love it. I'll sum up your post for you. You said, "I'm not sure about the data colleceted as I don't agree with it so it's probably not correct. The opinion that is right on is one that I believe to be true as well."

Folks, you just can't make this stuff up.

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 01:05 PM

I love it. I'll sum up your post for you. You said, "I'm not sure about the data colleceted as I don't agree with it so it's probably not correct. The opinion that is right on is one that I believe to be true as well."

Folks, you just can't make this stuff up.

And, of course, that bears no resemblance to what I said, and you know it.

Making centralized government policy based on statistics and pragmatic considerations. Utilitarianism, anyone? How about Marxism?

Statistics are only as useful as the methodology behind them, and even they they can be manipulated. Policy should be made on moral and ethical grounds. The government has no business engaging in "sex education", giving out contraceptives, or anything else like that. Sex education is the parent's responsibility.

What this entire discussion proves is that a person's opinion on any range of issues involving the government boils down to one's basic political philosophy. Arguments like this are really arguments about whether one is a socialist, communist, libertarian, republican, what have you. How you view an issue is affected by your overall view of government's responsibilities in general.

mdklatt

1/26/2006, 01:42 PM

Divorce rate is misleading without the corresponding "casual sex" index, or whether people are shacking up as opposed to getting married.

Divorce is bad, period. Not from a moral standpoint, in my opinion, but just because it's a ****ty thing for people to go through. I think your point is that the US divorce rate is higher because our marriage rate is higher, and this is probably true. The problem, then, is not that our divorce rate is too high but that our marriage rate is too high. I bet the average marrying age (first marriage) in the US is a lot lower than in Europe. This is bad. Furthermore, I bet the teenage marriage rate is much higher because kids want to have sex but don't want to go to hell. According to the Morality Police, it's preferable for two married but still irresponsible 17-year-olds to be having sex than it is for two unmarried 30-year-olds. From a strictly sociological standpoint, isn't that just ***-backwards?

As far as the teenage birth rate goes, from perusing the report, I can't tell if they've accounted for population differences or what other socio-economic factors they may have left out. But, as far as I can tell, they did not account for the overall general availability of abortion on demand (which would reduce the live birth rate), or the many countries in Europe who have legalized prostitution, thereby cutting down on the casual sex rate.

Our socioeconomic indicators are probably out of whack compared to Europe, too. Our poverty rate is a lot higher, I'm sure: capitalism vs compassion. It's interesting that in a "moral" society like ours compassion loses out more often than it does over in heathen Europe.

But the report has it right on when it talks about the "sexualization" of Western society as being the primary reason why teenage births are up overall.

We're not any more sexualized now than in previous eras. It's just that in the past things like teenage pregnancy were swept under the rug. In 1960 when a cheerleader got knocked up she went to "visit a relative" for six months and came back with a new baby "brother". Now she can probably put the kid in daycare at her HS.

Apparently we didn't learn anything from Prohibition. Making something forbidden doesn't make it go away, it just pushes it out of sight. So now we teach abstinence instead of birth control in sex ed classes. Why not teach both?

mdklatt

1/26/2006, 01:46 PM

Making centralized government policy based on statistics and pragmatic considerations. Utilitarianism, anyone? How about Marxism?

Who's talking about government policy? The statistics were introduced when you asserted that Europe is the next best thing to Sodom and Gamorrah. You can have morality without fundamentalism, and vice versa.

1stTimeCaller

1/26/2006, 02:01 PM

The government has no business engaging in "sex education", giving out contraceptives, or anything else like that. Sex education is the parent's responsibility.

who do you think foots the bill for these new babies when the parents aren't responsible enough to use contraceptives much less raise children? That's right 'The Government' - you and me.

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 03:57 PM

who do you think foots the bill for these new babies when the parents aren't responsible enough to use contraceptives much less raise children? That's right 'The Government' - you and me.

That is true, but that does not make it right. Just because the government engages in a certain thing doesn't mean that it should.

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 03:58 PM

Who's talking about government policy? The statistics were introduced when you asserted that Europe is the next best thing to Sodom and Gamorrah. You can have morality without fundamentalism, and vice versa.

The report is worded in terms of what governments can or should do to lower their teenage pregnancy rates.

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 04:06 PM

Divorce is bad, period. Not from a moral standpoint, in my opinion, but just because it's a ****ty thing for people to go through. I think your point is that the US divorce rate is higher because our marriage rate is higher, and this is probably true. The problem, then, is not that our divorce rate is too high but that our marriage rate is too high. I bet the average marrying age (first marriage) in the US is a lot lower than in Europe. This is bad. Furthermore, I bet the teenage marriage rate is much higher because kids want to have sex but don't want to go to hell. According to the Morality Police, it's preferable for two married but still irresponsible 17-year-olds to be having sex than it is for two unmarried 30-year-olds. From a strictly sociological standpoint, isn't that just ***-backwards?

Ah, but I do not look at things from a strictly sociological standpoint. We have a worldview difference.

Our socioeconomic indicators are probably out of whack compared to Europe, too. Our poverty rate is a lot higher, I'm sure: capitalism vs compassion. It's interesting that in a "moral" society like ours compassion loses out more often than it does over in heathen Europe.

That depends on your definition of compassion. You are also setting capitalism and compassion as at odds with each other. That is a Marxist paradigm which I don't accept.

We're not any more sexualized now than in previous eras.

I'm going to say this in all seriousness, and without the intention of demeaning you:

Are you mental?????????

Apparently we didn't learn anything from Prohibition. Making something forbidden doesn't make it go away, it just pushes it out of sight. So now we teach abstinence instead of birth control in sex ed classes. Why not teach both?

If you mean it would be fruitless to outlaw sex outside of marriage, then yes, I agree with you that with our current government and society, it would not work. It is, however, a good idea in theory. And as for "sex ed" classes, my argument is that schools shouldn't even have them in the first place.

1stTimeCaller

1/26/2006, 04:15 PM

That is true, but that does not make it right. Just because the government engages in a certain thing doesn't mean that it should.

am I reading this correctly? Are you saying the government shouldn't take care of these kids?

If you are not saying that I apologize for putting those words into your mouth. If you are saying that, well, I'll just say wow.

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 04:25 PM

am I reading this correctly? Are you saying the government shouldn't take care of these kids?

In a different environment, no, it shouldn't. The kids should be taken care of by the family, or by private or religious institutions if they are orphaned. It's worked that way for thousands of years, up until the modern "welfare state" was invented.

Now, however, it would take a lot of work to eliminate this function from the government. We have succeeded in getting people so dependent on the government for their everyday existence, that to abruptly cut off services would be a)impossible, and b)unwise, because it would do more harm than good.

I'm in favor of a gradual phasing out of government "social services".

Herr Scholz

1/26/2006, 04:34 PM

mdklatt

1/26/2006, 04:47 PM

That depends on your definition of compassion. You are also setting capitalism and compassion as at odds with each other. That is a Marxist paradigm which I don't accept.

Why does poverty exist in this country? We have more than enough aggregate wealth to give everybody at least a reasonable standard of living--if we wanted to. We don't want to. We value hard work and merit above all else. Go to a "big box" church in a wealthy part of town on a Sunday morning. Add up all the money invested in the church itself (hardly a humble shack) and the value of all the Lexuses, BMWs, Mercedes, etc. in the parking lot. Figure out how much good that money could do if it was all donated to charity. Capitalism trumps compassion. Hey, it works for us. We're more economically successful than Europe. Entrepeneurs and businesses move here to get away the government-enforced compassion over there. But back to your original position, that we are morally superior to Europe: Is it more moral to tell people to suck it up so we can have lower taxes and nicer stuff?

I'm going to say this in all seriousness, and without the intention of demeaning you:

Are you mental?????????

Sex wasn't invented by MTV. Victorian society was very repressed in public, but they were a bunch of perverts--probably because they were so repressed. Prohibition doesn't work, especially when it goes against human nature. Telling kids not to have sex is only going to make them want to try it more. Sex is a topic that needs to be out in the open so it can be discussed.

I'll add alcohol to the list, which is something else we're bipolar about in this country. I bet teenage binge drinking and alcohol related deaths are higher here than in Europe where you grow up drinking wine or beer and thus learn how to be responsible about it.

If you mean it would be fruitless to outlaw sex outside of marriage, then yes, I agree with you that with our current government and society, it would not work. It is, however, a good idea in theory.

Why is it good in theory? What secular purpose does confining sex to marriage serve? Which is preferable to you: irresponsible, immature, unemployed (but married) 17 year olds having sex or responsible, mature, employed (but unmarried) 30 years olds having sex. Which couple is more likely to get pregnant and not be able to care for the baby?

And as for "sex ed" classes, my argument is that schools shouldn't even have them in the first place.

It should be a local decision. In poor inner city schools they'd damn well better be learning about birth control, because they're not going to learn about it at home. Didn't the Bush administration try to withholding federal funding from schools which handed out condoms or something like that? States' rights, schmate's rights.

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 04:53 PM

What about in Africa where thousands of children die daily from AIDS and other medical problems (malnutrition)? Thousands. Daily. This is my problem with the Catholic church's stance on contraception. This is a church that expands into 3rd world countries telling them to not use a condom. Crazy. Wouldn't a condom be more humanitarian than thousands of kids dying every day?

The Roman church does not base its teachings on so-called "humanitarianism". Now, I don't agree with their doctrine on this, but not because it's more "humanitarian" to allow for contraception. I just think that they're reading the Bible wrong (the Bible really doesn't discuss the issue, anyway).

I just really wonder at people who aren't willing to hold responsible, well, you know, the people that engage in this behavior, rather than the Church. And BTW the fastest growing church in Africa is the Anglican Communion, not the Romans.

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 04:58 PM

EDIT: 1TC's overly personal question was deleted, so I'm deleting the response.

NormanPride

1/26/2006, 05:04 PM

Some people think that if the Bible says some people should die because they're stupid/someone else is stupid, they should.

Herr Scholz

1/26/2006, 05:08 PM

The Roman church does not base its teachings on so-called "humanitarianism".
Right you are. But it also serves no spiritual purpose for so many innocent kids to suffer terribly and die needlessly. What lessons are they learning? What purpose are they 'fulfilling' for God?

I just really wonder at people who aren't willing to hold responsible, well, you know, the people that engage in this behavior, rather than the Church.
The church should educate them. Or at least not be against contraception and let other groups do the education and condom distribution.

StoopTroup

1/26/2006, 05:13 PM

Right you are. But it also serves no spiritual purpose for so many innocent kids to suffer terribly and die needlessly. What lessons are they learning? What purpose are they 'fulfilling' for God?

The church should educate them. Or at least not be against contraception and let other groups do the education and condom distribution.
What purpose are you 'fulfilling' for God?

Herr Scholz

1/26/2006, 05:23 PM

What purpose are you 'fulfilling' for God?
Duh. I'm a warning to others. ;)

StoopTroup

1/26/2006, 05:24 PM

Duh. I'm a warning to others. ;)
Heh.

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 05:38 PM

But back to your original position, that we are morally superior to Europe: Is it more moral to tell people to suck it up so we can have lower taxes and nicer stuff?

You're engaging in a logical fallacy by couching the argument in offensive terms. You are also confusing a moral issue with a political one. If your position is that "socialism is morally superior to capitalism" then say so. I say no it is not, because socialism involves government appropriation of private property, which is theft, and a violation of the 8th Commandment. For your position to be true, it would have to be true that it is intrinsically better for the government to provide for people than for people to provide for themselves.

Sex wasn't invented by MTV. Victorian society was very repressed in public, but they were a bunch of perverts--probably because they were so repressed.

Take a look around you. People are perverts anyway. If you're arguing there is less sexual perversion now than in the 1800s, then I challenge you to prove it.

Sex is a topic that needs to be out in the open so it can be discussed.

In the home, yes. In schools, no.

I'll add alcohol to the list, which is something else we're bipolar about in this country. I bet teenage binge drinking and alcohol related deaths are higher here than in Europe where you grow up drinking wine or beer and thus learn how to be responsible about it.

I agree with you on this point. The difference is, sex outside of marriage is a sin, but drinking alcohol isn't sinful per se, it only becomes so when taken to excess.

Why is it good in theory? What secular purpose does confining sex to marriage serve?

I didn't mean to argue that there was a secular purpose, but, since you brought it up...an orderly society is enhanced when family units are stable. Stability of families is impaired when the sexual relationship is taken out of its intended context. I will say that the reason this is so, is because that is the way we were created. You will, of course, disagree with me, but that's the reason.

If every single child born in this country had a married mother and father, how many different aspects of society do you think would drastically improve? If prostitution, pornography, and other such things died out because they were no longer profitable?

Didn't the Bush administration try to withholding federal funding from schools which handed out condoms or something like that? States' rights, schmate's rights.

Again, I agree with you there. In fact, the whole concept of "federal funding for schools" is an infringement on state's rights.

StoopTroup

1/26/2006, 05:42 PM

Take a look around you. People are perverts anyway. If you're arguing there is less sexual perversion now than in the 1800s, then I challenge you to prove it.
Just guessing but...

There will be alcohol served during this Survivor Challenge, right? ;)

NormanPride

1/26/2006, 06:01 PM

How is socialism theft? You're part of the government willingly, which would make their distribution of wealth a voluntary action. If you don't want your wealth to be redistributed, don't be a member of the government.

mdklatt

1/26/2006, 06:08 PM

You're engaging in a logical fallacy by couching the argument in offensive terms. You are also confusing a moral issue with a political one. If your position is that "socialism is morally superior to capitalism" then say so. I say no it is not, because socialism involves government appropriation of private property

We're not really talking about socialism (Europe isn't any more socialist than the US) but liberalism. Europeans impose the high taxes upon themselves, so it's not really theft is it? If we're so righteous in this country we shouldn't need higher taxes and more social programs to take care of everybody. But we choose not to. Poor people in this country--including children--are pretty much SOL compared to their European counterparts. Superior morality, indeed.

Take a look around you. People are perverts anyway. If you're arguing there is less sexual perversion now than in the 1800s, then I challenge you to prove it.

There was the same amount of perversion. People are no different now then they were back then, but thanks to the information age perversion is more visible.

I didn't mean to argue that there was a secular purpose, but, since you brought it up...an orderly society is enhanced when family units are stable. Stability of families is impaired when the sexual relationship is taken out of its intended context.

A pair of clueless 17 year olds is a more stable family unit than a pair of unmarried 30 year olds? Whose kid would you rather be?

If every single child born in this country had a married mother and father, how many different aspects of society do you think would drastically improve? If prostitution, pornography, and other such things died out because they were no longer profitable?

Only people with umarried parents look at pornography or use prostitutes...riiiiiight.

Dio

1/26/2006, 06:10 PM

mdklatt

1/26/2006, 06:12 PM

Socialist countries don't usually give their citizens an "opt out".

We certainly can't opt out of paying income taxes. Is the US socialist?

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 07:34 PM

We certainly can't opt out of paying income taxes. Is the US socialist?

You said it, I didn't. :D

Seriously, though. We are not there yet, but we've been working our way toward it ever since the New Deal.

mdklatt

1/26/2006, 07:37 PM

You said it, I didn't. :D

Seriously, though. We are not there yet, but we've been working our way toward it ever since the New Deal.

You're still confusing socialism with liberalism. Liberals take your money and give it to somebody else. Socialists take your money and keep it.

handcrafted

1/26/2006, 07:49 PM

We're not really talking about socialism (Europe isn't any more socialist than the US) but liberalism. Europeans impose the high taxes upon themselves, so it's not really theft is it? If we're so righteous in this country we shouldn't need higher taxes and more social programs to take care of everybody. But we choose not to. Poor people in this country--including children--are pretty much SOL compared to their European counterparts. Superior morality, indeed.

And another fallacy rears its ugly head. You are equating the morality of an act or omission with whether the act or omission is actually accomplished. We are indeed immoral citizens for not taking better care of our own and of each other. Those shortcomings of our character are, however, irrelevant to the discussion of whether government social programs are an inherently good or bad thing.

There was the same amount of perversion. People are no different now then they were back then, but thanks to the information age perversion is more visible.

Thank you, that was the point I was making.

A pair of clueless 17 year olds is a more stable family unit than a pair of unmarried 30 year olds? Whose kid would you rather be?

Again with the fallacies, straw men, and pragmatism? You insterted additional terms into my argument which I did not address. My argument is, that generally speaking, a married couple is more stable than an unmarried one, because it is much easier for the unmarried couple to split with no consequences and little effort. I would also argue that age isn't a factor so much as maturity. Two people who are clueless about marriage should not get married, no matter how old they are. This is why I am in favor of mandatory prenuptial counseling, and some more restrictions on who actually can get a marriage license. We don't just give anyone who wants one a license to drive a car, so why should we just give out marriage licenses like candy?

Only people with umarried parents look at pornography or use prostitutes...riiiiiight.

Straw man, fallacy (do we sense a pattern?). I made no such absolute statement. My argument is that the number of people availing themselves of such services, after having had a home life with two married parents, and observing a healthy sexual relationship in its proper context, would be lower. And I speculated that the number would be vastly lower if all children lived with two married parents. Speculation, because currently that situation is not possible. I also speculated that the pornographers and prostitutes would be largely driven out of business in that case.

mdklatt

1/26/2006, 08:27 PM

Those shortcomings of our character are, however, irrelevant to the discussion of whether government social programs are an inherently good or bad thing.

I'm not talking about whether or not government programs are a good thing. I'm talking about whether or not the US is a more moral country than Europe. If you look at all the things the "Family Values" crowd constantly harps on we're certainly not. Even within the US, states like Oklahoma are generally worse off on the Family Values Index than those godless liberal states on the coasts. Oklahoma has one of the highest divorce rates of all the states in the country with the highest divorce rate in the world. Who are we to lecture anybody else? (As I matter of fact, I think there might be a Biblical verse about that very thing....)

You insterted additional terms into my argument which I did not address.

That's because you never addressed my argument.

My argument is, that generally speaking, a married couple is more stable than an unmarried one, because it is much easier for the unmarried couple to split with no consequences and little effort. I would also argue that age isn't a factor so much as maturity.

Again, the Morality Police tell us that it's preferable for married 17 year olds to have sex than unmarried 30 year olds. On the whole, umarried 30 year olds are better equipped to handle the consequences of a sexual relationship than married 17 year olds, but who gets the dirty looks in church? This attitude is harmful to society if you think that divorce is a bad thing. I contend that the lets-get-married-so-we-can-have-sex attitude is a significant factor in the number of underage marriages that are doomed to fail. Of course, little Romeo and Juliet don't think that's what they're doing, but they don't know the difference between lust and love.

We don't just give anyone who wants one a license to drive a car, so why should we just give out marriage licenses like candy?

We shouldn't. It should be relatively easy to get divorced but real damn hard to get married.

My argument is that the number of people availing themselves of such services, after having had a home life with two married parents, and observing a healthy sexual relationship in its proper context, would be lower. And I speculated that the number would be vastly lower if all children lived with two married parents.

You're saying that pornography can't be part of a healthy relationship?

Who is more likely to avail himself of porngraphy--somebody who's having sex or somebody who's not? In my experience, it's usually the churchy types who are up to no good when nobody is looking because they're under the most pressure. I think you're confusing having married parents with having parents who convince their kids that the path to hell is around every corner.

If you can find some numbers about how parental marital status effects pornography and prostitution usage I'd like to see them, because I don't think there's a difference.

handcrafted

1/27/2006, 10:19 AM

Which if any of these statements do you agree with:

1. The ends justify the means
2. Truth is what works
3. Laws should be designed so as to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people
4. People are basically good, it is social conditions which make them do bad things
5. Motivations are more important than acts; as long as a person acts out of love, what they do is acceptable
6. So long as you harm no one, do what you will

mdklatt

1/27/2006, 05:15 PM

1. The ends justify the means

No.

2. Truth is what works

:confused:

3. Laws should be designed so as to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people

No.

4. People are basically good, it is social conditions which make them do bad things

Too simplistic.

5. Motivations are more important than acts; as long as a person acts out of love, what they do is acceptable

No.

6. So long as you harm no one, do what you will

Yes.

1stTimeCaller

1/27/2006, 05:21 PM

Why is our Government in the business of selling marriage licenses anyway?

I'll take this answer off of the air.

NormanPride

1/27/2006, 05:24 PM

I can understand approving unions for various legal purposes (tax breaks, etc) but as far as "marriage" I think the government should stay out. That's for the religious places to decide. But I'm a big proponent of separation of church and state.

1stTimeCaller

1/27/2006, 05:28 PM

I just don't want to get a permit to have a baptism for my kids one of these days if I can find someone I wanna make kids with.

mdklatt

1/27/2006, 05:31 PM

Why is our Government in the business of selling marriage licenses anyway?

Ideally, it shouldn't be. All the necessary legal functions of marriage already exist outside of marriage in some form--child custody, insurance beneficiaries, etc. Get the government out of marriage. Got married in a church? Great. Got married to a dolphin and have the online certificate you printed out to prove it? Whatever floats your boat. It's not anybody else's business.

soonerscuba

1/27/2006, 05:31 PM

I don't need the pope to tell me that throwing dirty leg is awesome.

mdklatt

1/27/2006, 05:33 PM

I can understand approving unions for various legal purposes (tax breaks, etc)

As long as we're playing devil's advocate, why should married couples get tax breaks?

1stTimeCaller

1/27/2006, 05:34 PM

I guess I shouldn't worry about it until I find some ole gal that likes guys with pink hats, chews Copenhagen, has a dog that licks the bed and pees in inappropriate places.

Is brat single? ;)

1stTimeCaller

1/27/2006, 05:35 PM

As long as we're playing devil's advocate, why should married couples get tax breaks?

they don't do they? They recently ended the 'marriage penalty' on fed income tax didn't they?

NormanPride

1/27/2006, 05:38 PM

As long as we're playing devil's advocate, why should married couples get tax breaks?

Incentive to get married? I dunno. I want it because I'm gonna get married soon and I want my freaking tax break. ;)

mdklatt

1/27/2006, 05:39 PM

they don't do they? They recently ended the 'marriage penalty' on fed income tax didn't they?

Or something. I never really knew what that was about. I think you had to pay more taxes if you filed jointly instead of individually. So why not just file individually?

yermom

1/27/2006, 05:45 PM

if a spouse doesn't work are they a dependent?

mdklatt

1/27/2006, 05:48 PM

if a spouse doesn't work are they a dependent?

I would think so, but who knows.

1stTimeCaller

1/27/2006, 05:49 PM

if a spouse doesn't work are they a dependent?
can you claim dolomite? ;)

mdklatt

1/27/2006, 05:52 PM

Incentive to get married?

If some people are only getting married for a tax break then we should definitely do away with it. :eek:

NormanPride

1/27/2006, 06:00 PM

If some people are only getting married for a tax break then we should definitely do away with it. :eek:

Well, not the SOLE reason, but if you're waffling or something. I dunno. It takes all types, I guess.

yermom

1/27/2006, 06:03 PM

If some people are only getting married for a tax break then we should definitely do away with it. :eek:

i've yet to see a good reason other than god wants you to (or some derivative of that)

mdklatt

1/27/2006, 06:05 PM

Well, not the SOLE reason, but if you're waffling or something. I dunno. It takes all types, I guess.

If you can get married to a stripper you just met by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, I think marriage has ceased to be something the government should go out of it's way to protect or encourage.

mdklatt

1/27/2006, 06:11 PM

i've yet to see a good reason other than god wants you to (or some derivative of that)

From a strictly romantic point of view, marriage communicates the deepest level of commitment--but when you think about it how romantic is that?

I love you...because the government says I have to.

Sooner_Bob

1/27/2006, 07:19 PM

Some of you have a very skewed viewpoint about marriage . . .

yermom

1/27/2006, 07:28 PM

if you take god and the government out of the equation, what is the point?

what does a piece of paper have to do with commitment?

it's not like very many people even stay married...

Sooner_Bob

1/27/2006, 07:34 PM

I'm not saying I need a piece of paper to prove I love my wife . . . or that anyone else needs a piece of paper to love their spouse.

But marriage isn't just a covenant between two people, it is something that is publicly expressed to others to show that the two people involved are committed to one another which hopefully means the marriage will be honored and there won't be any sneaking around or other "bad stuff" going on.

Just like anything else, you get out what you put in.

mdklatt

1/27/2006, 08:24 PM

But marriage isn't just a covenant between two people, it is something that is publicly expressed to others to show that the two people involved are committed to one another which hopefully means the marriage will be honored and there won't be any sneaking around or other "bad stuff" going on.

1) Doesn't the responsibility to avoid any "bad stuff" lie solely with the married couple? I don't see why other people need to be involved.

2) The government certainly doesn't need to get involved in this.

RacerX

1/27/2006, 08:41 PM

I don't care what the pope says.

47straight

1/28/2006, 12:26 PM

Ideally, it shouldn't be. All the necessary legal functions of marriage already exist outside of marriage in some form--child custody, insurance beneficiaries, etc. Get the government out of marriage. Got married in a church? Great. Got married to a dolphin and have the online certificate you printed out to prove it? Whatever floats your boat. It's not anybody else's business.

No. It is our business if people want the benefits of marriage. We decide what contracts we will collectively enforce. There's no incentive to society to go through the pain of enforcing a domestic agreement between you and a dolphine, nor providing any ancillary benefits to encourage the permanence of that relationship. Your list of necessary legal functions entirely misses the real key functions of marriage: How do we support caregivers in families?

47straight

1/28/2006, 12:31 PM

If you can get married to a stripper you just met by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, I think marriage has ceased to be something the government should go out of it's way to protect or encourage.

Then you would support mandatory pre-marital counseling, elimination of "no-fault" divorce, etc?

47straight

1/28/2006, 12:32 PM

I don't care what the pope says.

I do.

handcrafted

1/28/2006, 01:02 PM

Yes.

Ah, okay, so you're a Wiccan then?

handcrafted

1/28/2006, 01:05 PM

Some of you have a very skewed viewpoint about marriage . . .

Some of these people have a very skewed viewpoint about life in general. I'm not sure I've ever seen so much ignorance in one place, but then again, this is the innerweb.

Many people just don't seem to think, I mean really think, about what they are saying and its implications. Most people just spout off what the "popular opinion" is and/or what will make them acceptable to other people. It's a sad way to live your life, this shallow unthinking "follow the crowd" way. The ants go marching two by two, hurrah.