Sex Before Marriage (2 Viewers)

[Lundy]

I hear a lot of young people insist they don't want to get married or have children. I'd be very surprised if all of them end up keeping that mentality all throughout their life. Hell, if my grandmother hadn't changed her mind, I wouldn't be here today!

As for me, I don't see marriage as something necessary in order for my life to be considered fulfilled. If I find someone I want to marry, I will. If I don't, then that's fine too. I also believe in trying before buying. Sex really isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be. But if that's your choice to wait, so be it.

 

[Josie]

lol. I didn't mean it like that at all. Sorry

I am assuming from your prevoius comments that you see marriage as no more than a piece of paper? If so why is that, I think there is definately something different about being recognizied as married, rather than a couple that lives in the same house. Something more than just a piece of paper goes on, am I the only one that notice's that?

Also if you really see it as there being no difference, why would you choose not to go through with being married together? Is it to spite "religion"? Makes it harder to seperate? If the difference is really only a piece of paper, then why not get married and have a romantic day and honeymoon with your love?

Because two people sharing a living situation/children/finances/houses etc etc, without pandering to the origins of marriage, which is religious. Wouldn't it be betraying the "institution of marriage" if you don't believe in it's principles and got married anyway?
I'm probably biased because my parents never married (if they had of, it would have been a disaster, they're better off friends).
Many people get married today purely for the "wedding day" part too, which is also silly. Waste of money imho.
If it means the same, why not save the money, get a house, and have a romantic holiday with my partner? Why do I have do pander to societies expectations of couples?
Besides, in modern society, de facto is essentially married in the eyes of the law.
My dad and his current partner have been together for 19 years now (i'm 19 too, how amusing), and they have no intentions of getting married. But they happily call each others kids their own, own a couple of houses together, and would never consider loving anyone else. So maybe you could say it's a product of my upbringing. Many of the kids I went to school with have been through messy divorces, and on the whole, the single parent kids like me seem to have been far happier with our arrangements

 

[Josie]

I hear a lot of young people insist they don't want to get married or have children. I'd be very surprised if all of them end up keeping that mentality all throughout their life. Hell, if my grandmother hadn't changed her mind, I wouldn't be here today!

As for me, I don't see marriage as something necessary in order for my life to be considered fulfilled. If I find someone I want to marry, I will. If I don't, then that's fine too. I also believe in trying before buying. Sex really isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be. But if that's your choice to wait, so be it.

I'd be dangerous to society as a mother .

And on the contrary, most of my friends can't wait to get married. One couple I'm expecting to make the announcement any day now, they've been together about 6 years. Actually, make that two couples (from my school group of friends).

 

[BradCube]

Because two people sharing a living situation/children/finances/houses etc etc, without pandering to the origins of marriage, which is religious. Wouldn't it be betraying the "institution of marriage" if you don't believe in it's principles and got married anyway?
I'm probably biased because my parents never married (if they had of, it would have been a disaster, they're better off friends).
Many people get married today purely for the "wedding day" part too, which is also silly. Waste of money imho.
If it means the same, why not save the money, get a house, and have a romantic holiday with my partner? Why do I have do pander to societies expectations of couples?
Besides, in modern society, de facto is essentially married in the eyes of the law.
My dad and his current partner have been together for 19 years now (i'm 19 too, how amusing), and they have no intentions of getting married. But they happily call each others kids their own, own a couple of houses together, and would never consider loving anyone else. So maybe you could say it's a product of my upbringing. Many of the kids I went to school with have been through messy divorces, and on the whole, the single parent kids like me seem to have been far happier with our arrangements

I'm slightley confused (once again ) in that on one hand you say it would be wrong to get married when you don't beleieve in it's principles but you would then say that a defacto relationship is the same thing without the piece of paper. Is the only difference the percieved ability to stop the relationship smoothly?

If the relationship is just as tightly wound as a real marriage between your parents, then would not speration be felt just as strongly as divorce? I have no doubt that it could be just as tightly wound because, as you said, it basically is a marriage simply without the paper. I should also point out that while I think it can be as tightley wound in the relationship, I think it is still viewed differently in societies eye's. Even though by law they may be treated the same as a married couple, I think that there is a percieved difference in how poeple in society view the couples. Maybe I am wrong but I know I see them in two different categories.

However, I still think the paper, or rather what goes on, on the wedding day, is very significant in that you together agree before a whole lot of witnesses that you are becoming one together. You make a legal agreement, to each other and before a whole lot of people who support your desicion. It is on this basis that I think the actual wedding is important. Not because it is just a nice day and everyone gets to dress up, but the significance of what that day means for the two people. (I apologize if I made it seem as though the only reason for marriage is the niceness of the day and honeymoon in my previous post)

 

[Josie]

Nah, I'm talking about people in general and their desire for a wedding day (like some of my sisters friends when she got married). Both my brother and my sister are happily married, as a point of note.

No, I don't believe in marriage in the "til death do us part, submit to each other eternally" sense. A de facto relationship doesn't include "til death do us part".
And as for the de facto relationship splitting being as painful as divorce, I should have clarified, my parents never married, but they were also only together for a year. They broke up when I was a couple of months old and he moved in with my "step mother" and they've now been together 19 years. So I guess it could be as traumatic, but I just don't know. (I wouldn't give a crap if my Dad split up with the heinous she-bitch from hell anyway, I've never liked her).

 

[sparkl3z]

read bradcube's posts... you seem to share the same ideas and values, he seems to explain his views logically and meaningfully. you on the other hand, you are not only oversimplifiying and using extremes, by doing so you're being very disrespectful. perhaps im just bitter because im back at work and i hate it, but nevertheless, it has certainly pissed me off.

you could've worded that as "one heartache is enough"

why am i being disrespectful? i'm just saying my opinions directly, maybe too directly, but that's the only way for people to see different views, wether they understand eachother or not...anyway as for living together without marriage, i don't see that as a family, i mean on one hand i do, but on the other i dont, say they wanted to seperate, and they have children, the children are going to be left in the middle, not even carrying the fathers name perhaps...and the house they live in, who's going to take ownership of the property? they are just going to argue over it and hurt eachother more, whearas if they were married, there are more rights legally to each of them, plus it's too much freedom to either of them, the guy could just leave, and you can't really ask him anything about it cos he's not going to be ur husband, same for the woman, even if any of them were subject to abuse, you can't really do much if he's not anything of yours on papers, but otherwise they would track him down and ask him what his problem is, i can't really explain everything here, but these may seem basic at first, but really the may cause huge problems in peoples lives after, not that it will to all people living like that, but there is more of a chance of people being unhappy living together in that way, apart from these and many more factors not said here, i find it morally just not right, imo.

 

[BradCube]

Nah, I'm talking about people in general and their desire for a wedding day (like some of my sisters friends when she got married). Both my brother and my sister are happily married, as a point of note.

No, I don't believe in marriage in the "til death do us part, submit to each other eternally" sense. A de facto relationship doesn't include "til death do us part".
And as for the de facto relationship splitting being as painful as divorce, I should have clarified, my parents never married, but they were also only together for a year. They broke up when I was a couple of months old and he moved in with my "step mother" and they've now been together 19 years. So I guess it could be as traumatic, but I just don't know. (I wouldn't give a crap if my Dad split up with the heinous she-bitch from hell anyway, I've never liked her).

ahh ok. Your reasons for not agreeing with marriage make more sense. If you don't mind me asking why would you not want to be with someone until death does you part? Is it because you doubt your own ability, don't think you could put up with someone for that long or something else?

Marriage for a lifetime makes so much sense to me because I only want one person who completes me, and makes me truly who I was designed to be. If that is right then it means it will be the same for the other partner and we will complete each other for our whole lives.

 

[Josie]

I disagree with Til Death Do Us Part because I don't think there can be "just one" person. Human beings are a marvellous and complex combination of personal/physical/emotional traits.
Even if there is a "one" how can you ever be sure you've truly found them. Most people find their "one" many times, or so they think. They're wrong, but what's important is that they thought it was the one true love at the time.

You may only "want" to have one person who completes you, but you can't be 100% sure there will never be another.
I'd love to be able to be with one person forever (like my current partner), but I just don't think it's possible for most people.
(My grandparents have been married 60 years, good for them)

 

[BradCube]

I disagree with Til Death Do Us Part because I don't think there can be "just one" person. Human beings are a marvellous and complex combination of personal/physical/emotional traits.
Even if there is a "one" how can you ever be sure you've truly found them. Most people find their "one" many times, or so they think. They're wrong, but what's important is that they thought it was the one true love at the time.

You may only "want" to have one person who completes you, but you can't be 100% sure there will never be another.
I'd love to be able to be with one person forever (like my current partner), but I just don't think it's possible for most people.
(My grandparents have been married 60 years, good for them)

I sure there can be just one person. Maybe not before marriage, but once married I think it is possible to stick it out. I mean your grandparents are proof of that. If you want to be sure they are the one never go looking for another. That may be oversimplified, but I'm sure it would help to keep a relationship together. Unless of course you know you aren't meant for each other from the start.

Oh and I can be 100% sure I will never find another outside of marriage that completes me. That is a matter of my will not to look for someone else.

 

[sparkl3z]

excatly,i dont understand how people can even like two people at once, my friends friend said she does, i was like wtf, how can u do that you know, cos she's playin with their heads, while she's confusing herself aswel, i don't understand ppl like that.

 

[BradCube]

excatly,i dont understand how people can even like two people at once, my friends friend said she does, i was like wtf, how can u do that you know, cos she's playin with their heads, while she's confusing herself aswel, i don't understand ppl like that.

I'm pretty sure that it is possible to feel attracted to two people at once. I think that the difference comes when you show your loyalty to the one you know you are supposed to be with, the one you are commited to. In my opinion, it will only do damage to linger on thoughts of other people you find attractive (not necessailry physical). You have to get that out of your mind so you can actually be loving the person you are meant to be with properly.

It would be disasterous for a marriage, if the two partners felt attacted to other people and played around with thoughts of what it could turn into. Those thoughts simply should not be allowed to exist in my opinion.

 

[ur_inner_child]

why am i being disrespectful? i'm just saying my opinions directly, maybe too directly, but that's the only way for people to see different views, wether they understand eachother or not...

i see plenty of views, i respect Bradcube's views which are more or less the same as yours.

anyway as for living together without marriage, i don't see that as a family, i mean on one hand i do, but on the other i dont,

let's tale my boyfriend's family for example, and i will sincerely answer/refute your views... we are in discussion right?

say they wanted to seperate,

which hasnt happened for his family yet, they're pushing or are 50.

and they have children,

three.

the children are going to be left in the middle,

this happens even in wedlock, I don't see how this links to a family that chooses not to marry

and defacto rights, which you have disregarded during this conversation

http://www.lawsociety.com.au/page.asp?partid=6651][/url]
Who will the children live with?

The Family Law Act deals with children’s matters irrespective of whether or not the parents were ever married. The best interests of the child will be the most important consideration for the court.

As far as practicable, parents are encouraged to share parental responsibilities and to define their own individual arrangements. If they cannot do so, either party can apply to the court for a residence order about where the child will live, a contact order about contact between the child and the parent, or a specific issues order about other matters such as schooling and religion.

not even carrying the fathers name perhaps...

funnily enough in this specific case, they do take their father's name. The mother has kept her name with a hyphen, following the father's name.
Legally, this is easily done.

and the house they live in, who's going to take ownership of the property?

again, this is an issue that happens even with married couples, and you forget, once again that there are defacto rights. please look them up:

The NSW Property (Relationships) Act (formerly the De Facto Relationships Act) gives important rights to de facto partners and people in close personal relationships. The law gives such partners rights which are in some limited ways similar to those of a married partner claiming property settlement, regardless of whose name the property is in. However, you usually need to show that you have lived together for at least two years. If your relationship has lasted less than two years, you may claim if:

- There is a child of the relationship, or

- You are caring for a child of the other party, and the failure to make an order would result in serious injustice to you, or

- You made substantial contributions (financial or personal) for which you will not receive adequate compensation if the court does not make a property order, and the failure to make an order would result in serious injustice to you.

- In deciding on the division of property, the court will take into account the financial and non-financial contributions of each partner – for example the labour involved in renovating property or answering the phones for a business – and the contributions of each partner as a homemaker and parent.

The property from which you can claim may include real estate and personal property such as funds held in a company or damages payable to your partner as a result of court proceedings.

Applications for property division must be made to the Supreme Court, District Court or the Local Court within two years of the end of a relationship. The maximum you can claim in the Local Court is $40,000, unless the parties agree to the Local Court hearing a claim for a higher amount. The maximum you can claim in the District Court is $750,000. In some circumstances you may be able to apply outside the two-year period.

they are just going to argue over it and hurt eachother more, whearas if they were married, there are more rights legally to each of them,

there are difficulties even with a marriage. also, please refer to Australia's defacto rights.

plus it's too much freedom to either of them, the guy could just leave,

like in any other relationship?

and you can't really ask him anything about it cos he's not going to be ur husband,

Child support dear, don't you watch the movies?

Child Support

A carer of a child is entitled to child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act from the other parent of the child, irrespective of marriage. Scientific tests can accurately establish whether a man is the father of a child and these tests can be ordered by the court.

same for the woman, even if any of them were subject to abuse,

What rights do I have in circumstances of domestic violence?

The law will protect you if you are subject to violence or harassment even if your partner owns the house you live in. The court may grant a restraining order preventing the violent partner from entering your home or workplace. The court will also protect a child of a de facto relationship in the same way. In the event of an emergency you should contact the police or the Local Court.

you can't really do much if he's not anything of yours on papers,

refer to defacto rights about property NOT being in your name, as well as all the other rights I have tediously mentioned

but otherwise they would track him down and ask him what his problem is,

and demand child support... and other such wonderful things

i can't really explain everything here,

Is that because you actually have not looked up defacto rights, hence you werent entirely sure on what you were talking about?

but these may seem basic at first, but really the may cause huge problems in peoples lives after, not that it will to all people living like that, but there is more of a chance of people being unhappy living together in that way,

what do you mean? why would a couple be unhappy living with each other, assuming they emotionally, mentally and physically love each other? Do you mean some urge to get married? I dont follow.

apart from these and many more factors not said here, i find it morally just not right, imo.

In your opinion, okay, but what if i were to say that in the case of my boyfriend's parents being together for 30 years, love each other and respect each other enough that they are not insecure about how strong their love and comittment is by signing a form.

Signing a form may give a title, to form as "one", but the government recognises defacto relationships as "one". Simply in the case I;m mentioning, the two decided as lovers that they should buy a house, rather than hold a ceremony, or fill a form that gives the basically the same rights as a marriage. Morally, out of cliche and true hollywood -like love, if find their confidence in each other by not signing anything incredibly beautiful and romantic.

Morally, I cannot see how it is wrong. You grow up learning what eaxactly compromises love, what your life must follow at an early age, through fairy tales, movies and the general media. You see married couples and they always seem to appear happy. The ceremony itself is magical. The idea is beautiful. My personal girlish self eagerly awaits walking down in my wedding dress and have the man i love waiting for me, but when it comes to MORALS if that is what we are concerned about, not rights, or security, how could the simple fact of being with your partner without "doing" anything like marriage be morally wrong?

 

[sparkl3z]

dude, i didnt look up defacto rights yes, and your boyfriends parrents might be happily together, maybe that's one of the good examples, but i've seen bad examples around, many more bad then good, i'm not just incorporating australia into this, i'm looking at it as a worldwide thing, and mainly when you look at it that way, there are more negatives than positive. i don't find it right, morally, because say i had sex with husband to be dude before marriage, and then he leaves after a few months, weeks, and i'm pregnant, what am i going to do then, the child is going to have no father, ok here you can say, use protection duh..but protection doesnt matter to me, virginity does, nobody can just have sex with me and leave me, never going to happen, that's partly why it isnt going to happen before marriage, cos there are no guarantees, or less than there should be, i'm not going to discuss everything here, it just depends differently for different people, this is how i see it, it is a big thing to me, may not be to others, that is all.

 

[yy]

nobody can just have sex with me and leave me, never going to happen, that's partly why it isnt going to happen before marriage, cos there are no guarantees, or less than there should be

so what happens if your husband wants a divorce? are you just gonna beg him to stay?

 

[BradCube]

how could the simple fact of being with your partner without "doing" anything like marriage be morally wrong?

Great post, thanks for taking the time to write it out

If we are looking at it from a moral perspective rather than just the pros and cons, then it will be extremley hard to justify the position of marrige because, put simply, our world has very little or no regard for morals anymore. We live in a world where it's okay for anyone to believe what they want to believe as long as it "feels right" for them. When we look at it from a moral point of view everyone gets instantly agitated because they don't want to be told that they are doing something wrong. Correct? I mean I hate being told by someone else that I don't do the right thing. This is why in all of my previous responses I have made sure to justify my values with logical facts and reasoning.

You want to talk about my moral reasoning of why I think living with a partner is morally wrong? Then sure, but I understand already that you are not going to agree with it. Also understand that I am not forcing you to agree with it, but since you wanted to know how it is wrong, I will expand.

I believe morally that man and women were desgined for each other, they are different but complement each other perfectly. The differences in sexes is what makes the other so attractive.

I believe that sex was designed to bond a man and women together both physically, emotionally and spiritually.

I believe that this bond is something that is supposed to help keep the two people together for their entire lives.

I believe that sex was desgined to complete the couple after they have agreed to live together for the rest of their lives.

This agreement is marriage, not de'facto. While they may be able to live together for their entire lives in de'facto, if they have not agreed to it infront of witnesses and officially agreed to try and make the relationship work for a lifetime, then...here it comes.., they are living in a life of fornication.

And this is where, morally speaking, living with another person without getting married is wrong and not the way that it was intended to be.

You wanted a moral reason so I gave it. You may not like what you read, in fact I know you won't but I have tried to be as clear with my reasoning as I can. Make sure also that you keep in mind my reasons for not having sex before marriage as they may help to add a bit of logical reasoning to this moral question.

I have not come to offend, and I sincerly hope it hasn't, because I just wanted to explain morals as you asked for them.

 

[sparkl3z]

so what happens if your husband wants a divorce? are you just gonna beg him to stay?

nope, i'm going to make sure that there isnt a divorce.

 

[ur_inner_child]

dude, i didnt look up defacto rights yes, and your boyfriends parrents might be happily together, maybe that's one of the good examples, but i've seen bad examples around, many more bad then good, i'm not just incorporating australia into this, i'm looking at it as a worldwide thing, and mainly when you look at it that way, there are more negatives than positive. i don't find it right, morally, because say i had sex with husband to be dude before marriage, and then he leaves after a few months, weeks, and i'm pregnant, what am i going to do then, the child is going to have no father, ok here you can say, use protection duh..but protection doesnt matter to me, virginity does, nobody can just have sex with me and leave me, never going to happen, that's partly why it isnt going to happen before marriage, cos there are no guarantees, or less than there should be, i'm not going to discuss everything here, it just depends differently for different people, this is how i see it, it is a big thing to me, may not be to others, that is all.

your husband-to-be could leave you after the marriage?

you feel that marriage locks a relationship in total finality, and i'm not one to make you feel otherwise, even though i believe that you can only be happy when you are confident with yourself and your relationship,

this is your own mentality that i cannot change; where only in marriage do you feel totally secure, so that's fine as your own personal thing.

Great post, thanks for taking the time to write it out

If we are looking at it from a moral perspective rather than just the pros and cons, then it will be extremley hard to justify the position of marrige because, put simply, our world has very little or no regard for morals anymore. We live in a world where it's okay for anyone to believe what they want to believe as long as it "feels right" for them. When we look at it from a moral point of view everyone gets instantly agitated because they don't want to be told that they are doing something wrong. Correct? I mean I hate being told by someone else that I don't do the right thing. This is why in all of my previous responses I have made sure to justify my values with logical facts and reasoning.

You want to talk about my moral reasoning of why I think living with a partner is morally wrong? Then sure, but I understand already that you are not going to agree with it. Also understand that I am not forcing you to agree with it, but since you wanted to know how it is wrong, I will expand.

I believe morally that man and women were desgined for each other, they are different but complement each other perfectly. The differences in sexes is what makes the other so attractive.

I believe that sex was designed to bond a man and women together both physically, emotionally and spiritually.

I believe that this bond is something that is supposed to help keep the two people together for their entire lives.

I believe that sex was desgined to complete the couple after they have agreed to live together for the rest of their lives.

This agreement is marriage, not de'facto. While they may be able to live together for their entire lives in de'facto, if they have not agreed to it infront of witnesses and officially agreed to try and make the relationship work for a lifetime. Then...here it comes.., they are living in a life of adultery.

And this is where, morally speaking, living with another person without getting married is wrong and not the way that it was intended to be.

You wanted a moral reason so I gave it. You may not like what you read, in fact I know you won't but I have tried to be as clear with my reasoning as I can. Make sure also that you keep in mind my reasons for not having sex before marriage as they may help to add a bit of logical reasoning to this moral question.

I have not come to offend, and I sincerly hope it hasn't, because I just wanted to explain morals as you asked for them.

I do adore the way you write, despite conflicting views. Yes, there are certain bits I don't agree on, simply because I'm very aware with the changing constructs of what constitutes not only "love" but "marriage". These morals can only apply to you, and many others if they personally share it, but if, at any stage, it changed to accusations, such as assuming people that don't marry as virgins were promiscous, or that my boyfriends parents don't love each other etc...

the idea of adultery - i always saw it being sexual relations WHILE in wedlock, but not with your spouse. I suppose you may refute this. Legally, my definition is more or less correct. Your views seem to be fuelled with past or current religious/spiritual views, am I correct? If so, we should stop there, because religion for me is an entirely different story.

Marriage didn't always stay the same throughout history. Globally, a lot of couples would be out of wedlock. Historically, such as in Australia, the legalities of marriage was suited to the values and ideas dominant in society at the time. Aborigines were once denied the right to marry, along with many other things. Should they, because of this, NOT have children? NOT have sex? I can see yourself refuting that there can be exceptions. But why? Why slip an exception here but not there? Again the idea of marriage is incredibly flexible, which is evident across many cultures.

I respect you views a great deal. I once held the same values very close to me, but as long as you remain open-minded and understand the idea of what is "wrong" to you in the sense that you won't ever do it, and that people who stay in defacto relationships can have your most basic respect in your ideas of love and commitment, rather than the type of "wrong" where any person who doesnt follow your values is irrefutably wrong.

 

[BradCube]

I do adore the way you write, despite conflicting views. Yes, there are certain bits I don't agree on, simply because I'm very aware with the changing constructs of what constitutes not only "love" but "marriage". These morals can only apply to you, and many others if they personally share it, but if, at any stage, it changed to accusations, such as assuming people that don't marry as virgins were promiscous, or that my boyfriends parents don't love each other etc...

Your right here in that I cannot expect other people to agree with my morals (I think that is what you were saying). Hopefully I have succeded in making sure my posts don't accuse anyone of doing something wrong because I have only inteded to point out what I believe and why I believe it. I mean who am I to say that you are wrong? I have no more experience than anyone else here and I am only human.

the idea of adultery - i always saw it being sexual relations WHILE in wedlock, but not with your spouse. I suppose you may refute this. Legally, my definition is more or less correct. Your views seem to be fuelled with past or current religious/spiritual views, am I correct? If so, we should stop there, because religion for me is an entirely different story.

Your right about adultery, it should have been the word fornication. I'll re-edit that post and fix it up. Ta.

Your are also correct about me having a spirtual view and that is why I have tried to be as thought out and logical in my previous posts. I don't want to simply say it's wrong "because the bible says so". Intead, I would rather point out logically the very reasons why I believe what I see as truths in the bible. I have strayed away completely from even mentioning the bible, because I knew that all my responses would lose credibility, as if I don't posses the ability to think rationally through the issues. I have also done this because a bible counts for practically nothing in our world. No one wants to read a book that tells them they are not living properly. Who wants to be told they are wrong after all? I just hope that through my reasoning you are able to see why I believe what I do, and that I am not simply living a blindfolded life.

Marriage didn't always stay the same throughout history. Globally, a lot of couples would be out of wedlock. Historically, such as in Australia, the legalities of marriage was suited to the values and ideas dominant in society at the time. Aborigines were once denied the right to marry, along with many other things. Should they, because of this, NOT have children? NOT have sex? I can see yourself refuting that there can be exceptions. But why? Why slip an exception here but not there? Again the idea of marriage is incredibly flexible, which is evident across many cultures.

I don't think it would be right for me to slip an exception here and there, if we are looking at morals there are almost definate rights and wrongs. (Although I will admit there are grey areas) I would like to point out that I think social ideas of marriage at that time should not affect what marriage means itself.

In the case of the Aboriginals, let me place myslef in their postition. I assume you mean they would not be able to marry in "white" culture. If I was in that postition, I would not be getting married to a white person, but rather marrying another aboriginal in my tribe. While it is possible to say these morals are completely unfair to an aborginal and white person that fall in love, I would disagree. Sure, it is unfair to both of them, but it's not because of the morals I hold that makes it unfair. It is because of white people (as in white society) stopping the two from getting married in the first place. That is what is unfair and is wrong in this situation. It doesn't make it right for them to run away together without being married. Two wrongs don't make a right after all eh?

I respect you views a great deal. I once held the same values very close to me, but as long as you remain open-minded and understand the idea of what is "wrong" to you in the sense that you won't ever do it, and that people who stay in defacto relationships can have your most basic respect in your ideas of love and commitment, rather than the type of "wrong" where any person who doesnt follow your values is irrefutably wrong.

What your saying is exactly why I have not labelled anyone here as wrong. I hope that has been clear. Thanks for your logical responses. It is so much easier to talk in an intelligent way when people don't flame you for your differing views.

 

[fake_mcdickpant]

People who are fixated on a set of ideals are setting themselves up for alot more disapointment in life than those who keep an open mind. And those who say "Divorce is not an option" and that they "will make it work" are seriously misguided. You will never be able to make anything work 100% if it falls apart. You have to learn to accept that situations CAN fall apart, and it will be detriment to you if you try and cling to a situation that no longer works or feelings that simply don't exist anymore.

 

[Josie]

nope, i'm going to make sure that there isnt a divorce.

Tying him in your basement and not letting him out doesn't count.

Bradcube argues much more coherently than you do