falb wrote:bbobeckyj wrote:falb wrote:
As for the specific issues you mentioned, I am too against unnecessary abortion of willful pregnancies but not because the bible says so. I think it's a very convenient exit clause for cheap and careless couples. At the same vein, I'm very pro contraception.
Would it be better for a couple who didn't want a baby, and who were not responsible enough to prevent a pregnancy in the first place, to actually have the child and raise it? Or do you mean adoption? (which pretty much means a high chance of care homes, foster care, and abuse)
Carelessness is not and should never be an excuse. If you text while driving and kill someone you're not innocent and don't get a get out of jail free card. Why should a careless parent get such benefit?
But you're asking the wrong question. The simplest question would be: Why are people careless? In a longer form, the question would be, if future parents didn't have the convenient choice of abortion or abandonment or otherwise if there was a heavy burden over children given birth to, would couples still neglect using a condom or contraceptives?
I find it ironic that people use condoms to prevent contracting AIDS or other STDs but not to prevent the conception of an unwanted child and future unborn child. Obviously they care a lot for their own life but not at all for that of an unborn child. Obviously they value it less than the price of a pack of condoms.bbobeckyj wrote:falb wrote:As for gay marriages, I'm against the new form of marriage we have nowadays only as means to share benefits because I don't see why my roommate of 5 years and I couldn't share benefits just because we didn't have sex together. Obviously this applies not only to many gay marriages but also many others. I'm also against gay marriage because it enables gay couples to adopt children and IMO it's not right. I agree it's better than missing both parent figures so I agree that it's better for orphans to have a strange family than none at all but still that doesn't change my opinion that it's not right. BTW, I'm also strongly against divorce. I realize I'm talking about an ideal world but I've found out that many clauses that have originated as means to solve an issue have turned in time into stimulants of that same issue.
Someone said 'god created love/sex, priests created marriage'. The problem with not allowing gay marriages is when you have issues with legal rights/power of attorney etc. A worst case scenario, two gay men/women living together for years, both outcast by blood family, one is injured, in a coma, the other gets no rights for their partner, and when they die all the estate is passed the blood family. With that in mind, I think gay marriages are a good thing. Though quite why someone would want to be married by an institution that has rejected them for who they are, seems such a contradiction.
Your example is confusing. Wouldn't a simple will or testament be an easier and better solution?bbobeckyj wrote:If being gay is a naturally occuring phenomenom, as is wanting to be a mother, how do you argue against two women wanting a child?
Easy, if you have both a heterosexual couple and a lesbian couple requesting adoption of the same child, who would you give the child to, were you the person in charge to make such decision?bbobeckyj wrote:Are you against divorce for all reasons?falb wrote:People get easily married for no reason nowadays because they can get a divorce as easily. Rant over.
I'm against divorce because it's easier and cheaper nowadays to get married and divorced two months after than it is to get a cellphone service contract and terminate it. To put it in numbers, it's 60 bucks to get married in Vegas and 300 bucks to get a divorce but it's 72 bucks to activate two lines of cellphone service and 730 to terminate the contract after two months.
IMO, divorce originated as a solution to people attempting to get out of marriage for just reasons, nowadays it's turned to a solution to people attempting just to get out of marriage for no reason. Same as with abortion above, would people get married so easily if they knew they couldn't get out of it? If the words "till death do us part" really meant what they mean?
If a couple want to no longer be married, then they should respectively be allowed to divorce.
Rather than analyse the easiness of getting divorced, You should also look at the fool harty ways some people enter into marriage.
Look at that no talent wench Kim Katdasian. Gets married, sells pictures for millions and gets divorced within 3 mths.
Im pretty much sure that the number of people getting married is on the decline. For me its because its just not so necessary nowadays.
Going off topic here, but society has far, far more problems than divorce, abortions and the church.
In the UK, society is in a right state. My biggest concern is the state and attitude of a large portion of the younger generation. Absolutely shocking and getting worse..