<p>Then get married. Marriage for many people constitutes a fundamental, permanent change in the relationship – either because it is an outward expression of permanency or because it has a spiritual component as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a stupid question. I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way.</p>
<p>If you believe something is wrong, you have a natural and justified tendency to want other people to follow it.</p>
<p>If only there were something like this in real life…like LAWS, for example.</p>
<p>Hahalolk, I understand where you’re coming from with that remark about dance, it’s just…they’re very different things. You seem like a chill person. I don’t mean to sound mean or judgemental</p>
<p>TrueLove: This has been stated again and again. You can’t resort to personal attacks while avoiding proper debate and expect to be taken seriously. It’s your arguments that aren’t “gonna work, bud.” If you expect others to consider your point of view then properly defend your claims.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I do remember reading about a “study” on the correlations between compatibility with dancing and compatibility in the bedroom. It seems intrinsically understandable, but I didn’t check the validity of that study, and I’m sure there are many confounding variables.</p>
For some people, marriage is not the only pivotal point that expresses permanency in a relationship. You just said that yourself. So if a “fundamental, permanent change in the relationship” happens, then you don’t need a marriage to have sex.</p>
<p>For some reason, this reminded me of Cartman’s christian rock songs:</p>
<p>"The Body of Christ! Sleek swimmer’s body, all muscled up and toned!</p>
<p>The Body of Christ! O, Lord Almighty, I wish I could call it
my own! You’re one time, two times, three times my Savior…
Whenever I see Jesus up on that Cross I can’t help but think
that he looks kinda hot."</p>
<p>Excuse me Baelor, but morals are FAR different from laws.
And you know what, it is most definitely possible to respect people who don’t follow YOUR MORAL CODE EXACTLY!!!Especially when it is extremely strict.
For example, you might think lying is wrong.
But could you respect a man who lied in order to escape the Nazis and certain death (aka my great-grandfather)? Absolutely.
My friend Max personally thinks that homosexuality should not be allowed in his religion (Mormonism) but he UNDERSTANDS that not everyone follows his religion and that he can’t hold people to that standard.<br>
MORALS ARE PERSONAL!!!</p>
<p>How do you guys know that everything you believe in is true? There’s people from other religions who would be just as convinced of things in their religions, with just as much raw faith. There’s no real edge you have over any other belief here…these MORALS you so strongly cling onto were simply some ideas certain people liked and agreed on looooong looooooong ago.</p>
<p>Everyone who believes otherwise is wrong. Sorry, I forgot to mention that earlier. I just meant to say that some people recognize truth and therefore the nature of the institution of marriage, while others don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No they’re not. Laws are morality that is forced onto the masses. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. I could respect that person. That doesn’t mean I like every action taken by him, though.</p>
<p>Baelor- please enlighten me. As someone who is not religious, why is getting married such a necessary thing? Leaving God out of the equation, marriage is simply a piece of paper. If I sign a marriage certificate tomorrow, has my life and my relationship dramatically changed since today? No.</p>
<p>There are many things that are legal that you may consider immoral.
The law is a beautiful organic thing that must take ethics and morals into consideration. Which morality is some aspect of it, it is certainly not all of it.<br>
And morality is and INDIVIDUAL or SOCIAL construct. It changes wherever you go. there is no one moral thing.</p>
<p>And also, would you inflict your set of moral beliefs on him, or could you understand that there are instances where your morals can’t apply to other people? that situations differ from person to person and it is not FAIR to say that yours are ABSOLUTE???</p>
<p>If God did not exist, you would be correct. But he does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s because one’s moral code may not match up with the moral code of the Law, not because the Law is distinct from morality (except on issues like zoning, etc.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If by individual and social you mean universal and absolute, then yes, that is correct.</p>
<p>And tell me, did He tell you this? Did He also tell you why polygamy was perfectly acceptable in the Old Testament but not today? Did He tell you what age you could get married at? Tell me more about what He has told you about marriage.</p>
<p>^ I reiterate: Did He also tell you why polygamy was perfectly acceptable in the Old Testament but not today? Did He tell you what age you could get married at? Tell me more about what He has told you about marriage.</p>
<p>You, as an apparently ardent religious individual, should know that the topic of God’s existence is highly controversial. As always, you will need to provide facts and solid arguments to back up your claim if you ever wish to sway anyone else’s opinion. </p>
<p>The topic of absolute morality versus relative morality is one of individual preference, and another topic of high controversy. You get nowhere by suggesting that your opinions are absolute truth and only detract from your image as a debater.</p>
<p>According to the bible women are ready to get married at 12, men at 21…
IS this moral/correct to you.
Because according to this logic women would be having their first sexual encounter with a man nine years their senior…</p>