Should I attend?

Originally posted by xxxenophobe
STAY HOME AND GET DRUNK!
problen number 83866096324965872430956 solved once again by beer...

"This message brought to you by Bacardi 151... hel yeah you can drink it strait."

again.. i stick by my original statement....

Originally posted by Starrman
I would argue that a relationship must be dynamic to be stable in the present world. Certainly the world I live in is changing so quickly and the pressures are so more intense than when I grew up, that a situation without dynamics must surely fail. Adherence to such closed functions as marriage cause more strain on people as the concept is becoming less r ...[text shortened]... nd I do not think that it will have a necessarily adverse effect on the development of children.

What precisely do you mean by the terms "dynamic" and "stable" wrt relationships?

IMO a dynamic relationship is one where the status of the relationship at any given time depends on the mutual affinity of the parties involved. A stable relationship (in the long run) would be one where the relationship exists for a prolonged period of time (say, 15-20 years or more).

Even in the case of married couples, mutual emotional predisposition varies over the course of a long period of time; hence I would think that any relationship whose very existence depends on a minimum level of affinity at any given time would be prone to instability. This is supported by emprical studies as well:

http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2001/January/cohabitation.htm

(Scroll to the citations at the end of the page for a detailed list of such studies)

There are plenty of studies to show that children in such relationships are disadvantaged relative to those in married homes. I can look a few up if you want.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What precisely do you mean by the terms "dynamic" and "stable" wrt relationships?

I suppose a dynamic relationship is one where the potential for change is present and that it is not necessarily constricted by the parameters of marriage. Stable would be where changes and hazards that are met with along the way do not cause a fundamental breakdown in trust or the relationship itself.

IMO a dynamic relationship is one where the status of the relationship at any given time depends on the mutual affinity of the parties involved.

Why should this be any different within or without marriage?

A stable relationship (in the long run) would be one where the relationship exists for a prolonged period of time (say, 15-20 years or more).

Are you saying that time is the defining attribute of stability?

Even in the case of married couples, mutual emotional predisposition varies over the course of a long period of time; hence I would think that any relationship whose very existence depends on a minimum level of affinity at any given time would be prone to instability.

But staying together for extended periods of time is not a representation of a good environment for children. What I am hinting at is that while marriage instructs people to endure, despite a lack of mutual affinity (often leading to as many problems as with a split family), a relationship without marriage is a relationship bound by trust rather than law. If we could encourage a perceptual change in people to this end I think the need for marriage would dwindle. People could be held just as accountable for their actions as parents with or without marriage.

This is supported by emprical studies as well:

http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2001/January/cohabitation.htm

(Scroll to the citations at the end of the page for a detailed list of such studies)

There are plenty of studies to show that children in such relationships are disadvantaged relative to those in married homes. I can look a few up if you want.

I read your link and I would say just a couple of things. 1) I think the situation in the US is different from the UK, we have a less religiously concerned population. 2) The paper you provided claims marriage to be a state that co-habitors are aiming for, I would ask what about those co-habitors that never marry? Fair enough the co-habitation before marriage, but with an intention to marry, may be adverse to the possibility of a stable marriage, but what about those who develop long term relationships without the need for marriage? 3) I think that if cultural preconceptions about relationships (which are primarily built on religious concepts) were addressed to more acurately reflect the pressures of the modern relationship, then marriage would be an outmoded idea.

I have only had bad experiences of marriage, both through my own family and that of all my friends. Apart from one couple, I do not know a single person that has either not been divorced, or not endured their marriage for the sake of the children whilst throwing their own lives away and both regretting their situation entirely.

The notion of child raising is somewhat beyond my initial points on marriage and I would suggest that since the amount of children born in the UK out of marriage is so increasing (for better or for worse) we might leave it for another discussion as the issue is undeniably complicated?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Demonseed: "But the ad hominem attacks are what makes debating here such fun."

The mods and certainly the admins should take good notice of this (for a growing number of people) true observation.

I have to take issue with this:

If you read this thread you will note that I have made an attempt at a cogent argument.

I have read over many of the "debates" that are had not simply in this forum but in most Internet forums (fora?) and the same BS pops up time and time again.

Most annoying are these pseudo-philosophical arguments that are hopelessly out of date with current threads in philosophy. Let me surmise main thread titles.

1. Is Bush the Devil?

2. Does the Devil exist?

3. Does God exist?

4. Who created everything then?

5. Is creationism the answer?

6. Is God gay?

7.Hey all this arguing isn't fun let's make a chain of seemingly unrelated threads but put it in the same thread.

8. I have a superflous nipple, what y'all think of that one?


So spare me your trite ... if I find one of the main things that amuses me of this site is the trash talk and the put downs then so be it.

I, therefore, like the posts of Bowmann (?!), MoldyCrow, Darvlay, shaviximir, hand of hecate et al, because they intersperse their debate with a little bit of banter, well bowmann is all banter and no debate unless you are discussing Stanley Random.

postscript: The Countdown thread is beyond criticism.

Originally posted by Starrman
I have only had bad experiences of marriage, both through my own family and that of all my friends. Apart from one couple, I do not know a single person that has either not been divorced, or not endured their marriage for the sake of the children whilst throwing their own lives away and both regretting their situation entirely.

[/b]

You got to be Kidding, Out of everyone I know that got married, only a very few of them got divorced, and had bad marriges. On the other hand, People that I know that didnt get married, the guy would run off, leaving a single mother, a dadless child, or vise versa, If they are to scared to make a vow to each other, then most likey they wont stick together for long

Originally posted by flyUnity
You got to be Kidding, Out of everyone I know that got married, only a very few of them got divorced, and had bad marriges. On the other hand, People that I know that didnt get married, the guy would run off, leaving a single mother, a dadless child, or vise versa, If they are to scared to make a vow to each other, then most likey they wont stick together for long

You are confusing people who are having casual affairs with people that are partnered up without marriage, the two are different things. I'm not sure how you would do any demographics on them as it's probably nigh on impossible to factor the two groups apart for statistical methods, but nevertheless they are two seperate groups.

Originally posted by Starrman
You are confusing people who are having casual affairs with people that are partnered up without marriage, the two are different things. I'm not sure how you would do any demographics on them as it's probably nigh on impossible to factor the two groups apart for statistical methods, but nevertheless they are two seperate groups.

How so?

One can either go into a relationship with a fixed duration in mind ("We'll do this for a time period T and then stop" - e.g. one-night stands) or for an unlimited duration ("We'll do this till we feel it's time to stop"😉. Unless you're identifying casual relationships with the first kind and "partnerships" with the second, why should there be any distinction between the two?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How so?

One can either go into a relationship with a fixed duration in mind ("We'll do this for a time period T and then stop" - e.g. one-night stands) or for an unlimited duration ("We'll do this till we feel it's time to stop"😉. Unless you're identifying casual relationships with the first kind and "partnerships" with the second, why should there be any distinction between the two?

I believe there is a distinction, though I agree it is hard to clarify the seperation between the two. In my mind, there are people who have not yet considered a lengthy relationship, are too immature to do so, or for some other reason do not wish to enter into such. Then there are people who do want to settle down together and have a long term relationship, a house, holidays in the South of France, perhaps children etc. without marriage. My partner and I are one such couple, my brother and one of his endless number of changing girlfriends would be an example of the first type.

Obviously the issue of children would further complicate such relationships, as either can have them should they wish.

Originally posted by Starrman
Two of my friends are getting married. Originally it was not supposed to be either a marriage in the traditional way, more a declaration of partnership and mutual love in front of their friends. Also it was not prevously a religious affair as neither of them can be considered particularly practicing of their beliefs. However to please the parents they hav ...[text shortened]... y friends down, or decline the invitation and remain true to my feelings but upset my friends?

Go! Feel the hypocrasy. Remind yourself of why you chose atheism. DONT SING THOUGH (this is the difference between going to a peep show and going with a hooker).

You will come out feeling dirty, and slightly sorry for god, and the congregation who have all been slighty tarnished by the fallacy that has just been commited.

Then get very drunk.

Originally posted by invigorate
Go! Feel the hypocrasy. Remind yourself of why you chose atheism. DONT SING THOUGH (this is the difference between going to a peep show and going with a hooker).

You will come out feeling dirty, and slightly sorry for god, and the congregation who have all been slighty tarnished by the fallacy that has just been commited.

Then get very drunk.

Yuo choose atheism, because of hypocrasy? I know there are alot of hypacrites out there, even myself somtimes, but thats not a very good reason to become an athiest

Originally posted by flyUnity
Yuo choose atheism, because of hypocrasy? I know there are alot of hypacrites out there, even myself somtimes, but thats not a very good reason to become an athiest

Hi Fly,

Let me clarify. Going to church reminds me why I'm atheist. It give me the creeps all that talk of the holy ghost etc. By getting married in church non believers are hypocrites and are devaluing their wedding vows.

Watching friends go through this painful process just to get pretty photos and please the parents. This allows me to feel the hypocracy. This feeling reconfirms the reasons why I choose atheism.

If you truly believe then go to church regularly, but if you don't believe only go occaisionally to remind yourself of how you came to that conclusion.

Originally posted by invigorate
Hi Fly,

Let me clarify. Going to church reminds me why I'm atheist. It give me the creeps all that talk of the holy ghost etc. By getting married in church non believers are hypocrites and are devaluing their wedding vows.

Watching friends go through this painful process just to get pretty photos and please the parents. This allows me to feel the ...[text shortened]... you don't believe only go occaisionally to remind yourself of how you came to that conclusion.

ahh ok, I agree with you, nonbelivers are hypocrites when getting married in a church,