<p>^^ You did not answer my question. A website did, you did not.</p>
<p>As a non-christian, I have to ask. What DID God say about marriage?</p>
<p>Baelor, I debate in state and nationals, will be attending Northwestern U. on May 13. Let’s team up! Contrary to certain individuals opinion, you have debated at a very good level. I can imagine God stating, “Well done!” </p>
<p>Have a great night everyone!</p>
<p>I haven’t debated at a high level at all, in my personal opinion. That’s because I’m half-■■■■■■■■. But anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did answer your question. You asked for my beliefs. I gave them to you. And you are not talking about a website. You are talking about the Bride of Christ. But that’s neither here nor there.</p>
<p>I’m going to bed – I’ll respond to posts in the morning, if there are any.</p>
<p>^ Nah, no response. Just a simple 
at the idea that you answered the questions that I think I asked at least 3 times.</p>
<p>Which ones did I not answer? </p>
<p>Here, complete answers:</p>
<p>[PREPARATION</a> FOR THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE](<a href=“http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_13051996_preparation-for-marriage_en.html]PREPARATION”>Preparation for the sacrament of marriage (13 May 1996))</p>
<p>[Family</a>, Marriage and “De facto” Unions](<a href=“http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001109_de-facto-unions_en.html]Family”>Family, marriage and "de facto" unions)</p>
<p>My beliefs are that the Church teaches definitively through the grace of God. Thus, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, he has told all of us. I answered this question earlier as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fullness of God’s revelation as we understand it now is that marriage requires an acceptance of permanence, exclusivity, and openness to life. There is no minimum age, so long as both parties are capable of truly making that commitment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are approaching this from a very Protestant perspective. You need to alter your vantage point slightly – God doesn’t speak to people individually without intending the message to be heard by everyone. I therefore share in the body of knowledge along with everyone else. So has he spoken to me personally about marriage? No. But his Law thereof is clear anyway.</p>
<p>
Yes, I am throwing around random terms like happy because I was speaking in very general terms. But I will restate that law is derived from social norms, which naturally comes from commonly accepted morals, but that is not always the case. But at least I tried to explain what law is. Trying to define what happiness is to people will detract me from the point if my post, to explain where law comes from and what it means to me. Your turn to tell me exactly how is the law a system of morals? To me, morals are personal systems of conduct that help you decide between what is right and wrong. Laws (again, to me) are rules imposed on you by the government or whatever higher power.</p>
<p>Also, what is the point of having laws and morals if it does not bring order?</p>
<p>
@TCBH - To me, murder is morally wrong. My own personal believes contributed to me believing that murder is wrong. To another person, maybe or maybe not. But that’s not the point. I’m not saying that the law is based on morals. I’m saying that the law is used to bring order to a society, the best it can.</p>
<p>If murder was legalized, I can’t imagine a lot of people being okay with that. Free murder is not something that the majority of people will be okay with. The law exists to protect the interests of the people, does it not? Murder is not in the interests of the people. Again, I’m speaking very generally. </p>
<p>
Then what IS right. What MAKES something right? If something is commonly accepted does that make it right? Of course not.</p>
<p>If something is a law does that make it right? Again, of course not.</p>
<p>If something agrees with your OWN morals, does it make it right? To YOU it does, but maybe not to someone else. What is right to EVERY SINGLE living person with sentient though?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A lot of people are not capable of making such a commitment. You know, there is a very high divorce rate. Since this thread is about premarital sex, what is better in your opinion. </p>
<p>Case A: Two people are deeply in love and committed to each other. They start having sex. They break up, have sex with other people. End up getting back together and are married to each other and the marriage lasts forever.</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>Case B: Two people are deeply in love. They get married. They have sex, lose their virginities on their wedding night. Get divorced some years later, end on terrible terms, have sex and marry other people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s exactly what morals do – protect our interests. You speak on moral terms throughout your post without realizing it. Order, happiness, interests – all these things stem from our sense of morality.</p>
<p>And about the two scenarios: both involve extramarital sex (of which pre- is a subset) and are therefore both bad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But what if murder is in my own interest? Say it is legal to murder, and say I run a business - surely it would be profitable to murder all opposition. And if I decided that it didn’t run counter to my morals, would you not have reason to judge me? Would there be anything wrong if I murdered you?</p>
<p>
I can stand by my morals all I want. It’s not going to protect my interests, provide order or happiness unless everyone else happens to follow with me. The protection of my interests and my happiness is also influenced by things I can’t control. Laws are there to help me protect my interests and happiness the best it can. Morals are not constant for every individual, but at least in most places, the law is constant. Sorry to ask this again but, how is the law derived from morals?</p>
<p>
What makes pre-marital sex bad? Scenarios do not involve extra-marital sex because no one in those scenarios had sex with a partner outside of their marriage. In the first case, the couple was not married when they had sex with other people and when they were married to each other, they were completely devoted to each other. In the second case, neither cheated while married to each other. They had sex after divorce.</p>
<p>EDIT: Without saying that God or the bible says so, what makes sex out of marriage so bad? There must be a reason for God or the bible to says it, so then what is the reason?</p>
<p>Murder is ethically wrong and it is also morally wrong because it causes suffering to others. Sex is not ethically wrong, but it is morally wrong to some.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s too bad. It’s my fault for not getting this point across clear enough, but murder is not in the interests of most people, therefore murder would not be legalized. If it was in your interests, then too bad, you’re overruled by the majority whose interests murder does not protect. However if murder was in the interests of most people, then naturally there would be legalized murder.</p>
<p>My original point was law does not necessarily come from morals. Murder is illegal because it is not in favor of the interests of most people for obvious reasons. Don’t ask me what those reasons are, it’s okay to use common sense once in a while in a debate without asking for proof xP</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand. The king made it legal and he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about what the people think.</p>
<p>Which king? When? Does the law still exist?</p>
<p>If legalized murder still exists, then dang… I was wrong about the ability of people to change a law that does not protect the interests of the people it governs. :/</p>
<p>Unless it happens to protect the interests of the people wherever legalized murder exists…</p>
<p>I don’t know. I’m not sure it matters. I mean if someone tries to arrest me I’ll kill them because I don’t think I should go to jail… so am I justified? Or is there a moral imperative to follow whatever law does exist?</p>
<p>Law does not necessarily derive from morals. I don’t understand why you think that I would think there is a moral imperative to follow laws.</p>
<p>Even Thoreau believes that you should not be subjected to follow a law that you do not believe in. I believe in that, personally. </p>
<p>But if you’re going to go on a killing spree, then the law will punish you, because your actions are not benefiting the interests of the people you’re killing.</p>
<p>EDITED*</p>
<p>And, if you can find me that legalized murder exists somewhere, it matters because, I’m not sure if you’ve seen my edited post but…</p>
<p>"If legalized murder still exists, then dang… I was wrong about the ability of people to change a law that does not protect the interests of the people it governs. :/</p>
<p>Unless it happens to protect the interests of the people wherever legalized murder exists… "</p>
<p>HAHAHA why do the interests of the people you’ve killed matter, they’re DEAD!! I’m sorry! That was weak!!</p>
<p>You can see what I’m trying to say right? If not, at least meet me halfway and tell me what you think I’m saying and why you’re debating it?</p>
<p>So as long as I’m stronger than whoever tries to stop me, I’ve done nothing wrong?</p>
<p>And what would you think of me? Nothing more than fear?</p>
<p>Of course you’re doing something wrong. Wrong according to the laws, but maybe not according to you. But since there is no constant thing that determines what is right and what is wrong, because that is very subjective, we go with what is commonly accepted… even though whatever is commonly accepted is not necessarily “right”.</p>
<p>So according to the law, which is derived from social norms, or commonly accepted morals/principals/guides/codes of conduct, you’re done something wrong and you deserve to be punished. Escaping the law does not mean you’ve changed the law or changed what is right and wrong.</p>