Children are little ****bags who should be used for baynet practice.

[Pax]

Is marriage first and foremost about your happiness?

If it's not about happiness then what is about? Why would you do it if you didn't think it was going to make you happy in the end.

[Ben Kenobi]

What makes marriage more important than a business contract.

The simple fact that it is intended to be for life. That you are only allowed to have one contract at a time, etc. Lots of limitations that make no sense in the business world, apply to marriage.

Marriage is a contractual obligation that in a lot of cases has no profit.

Some, yes, but you cannot deny that in many and most cases it is beneficial to both.

Whereas in a business/work contract you are given the means too support yourself and uphold your marriage contract.
Romance without finance is a damn nuisance.

To a certain extent, yes, but a business doesn't really care if you are married, have kids to support, etc. Maybe 20 years ago they did, but now they do not. So business is very different from marriage, but I guess one could say that if the commitment to marriage is downgraded, so is the commitment to business contracts.

[Ben Kenobi]

If it's not about happiness then what is about? Why would you do it if you didn't think it was going to make you happy in the end.

I am not arguing that you should marry someone that makes you unhappy, just that as with anything, even something that does make you happy overall, is not always going to make you happy. Anyone who's been married for awhile will tell you this.

Marriage is about quite a bit more than your happiness. If they are happy and you are not, how can you say that your happiness is more important? Then with any children that you have. Their happiness is important too. Your responsibilities and obligations on marriage are not dependent on whether you are sick, or hurt or injured or least of all whether or not you are feeling happy at the time. You still have to do them.

I think marriage is definitely worth it for the overall happiness, and I look forward to this, but all marriages are going to have rough patches where you aren't going to be happy, or they aren't going to be happy and you have to work through it not trade in for a newer model.

[Dinner]

Ben, I don't believe you have ever been married. Have you even lived with a woman? If not then perhaps you shouldn't be dispensing relationship advice.

[giblets]

He's decided that his take on marriage should be enforced on everyone else by the government even though he's never been married. What an *******.

[Al B. Sure!]

The problem here is Christians decided that marriage is a 'sacrament' and not a legal contract, hence all this prohibition against divorce and the chaining of men and women to a religious idea while ignoring the well-being of those individuals. It is senseless. Islam is far more reasonable with written stipulations agreed to by consenting adults in the marriage contract (the nikkah), the ability to divorce if those stipulations are not fulfilled (hey, Ben, women can stipulate that their husbands will NOT take a second wife!), and even no-fault divorce which didn't reach the West until the late 20th century (in Islam, for men, at least; Muslim women are expected to give a reason for the divorce, although there are Hadith that tell of a woman seeking and receiving a divorce, even going so far as to say that her husband has not failed at any of his spousal obligations, with the only stipulation being that she give back the dowry to her ex-husband).

Why is this so? Because Islam recognizes marriage as having an earthly purpose for the benefit of humanity, not something imposed from on high upon men and women who may have changes of heart, changes of circumstance, or some other factor which would make the sustainment of their marriage to their detriment. Why? Because God is a merciful and understanding God.

[loinburger]

The fundamental problem with Ben is that he doesn't care about people. He cares about abstractions like "marriage," but not about the people participating in the marriage - it is irrelevant if anybody in the marriage is unhappy or if anybody in the marriage is being abused, because The Platonic Ideal Of Marriage is more important than any real-world marriage. It is irrelevant if people enjoy sex or if sex is beneficial to a relationship, all that matters is that people match The Platonic Ideal Of Sex (I recall him chastising a married Apolyton poster for getting a vasectomy after his third child - he was breaking The Rules, never mind that he came far closer to adhering to The Rules than marriageless childless Ben has or probably ever will). It is irrelevant that the Catholic Church has been complicit in rape, because The Platonic Ideal Of The Catholic Church is perfect - who cares if a few children were abused, The Church is more important. It is for these reasons that he feels absolutely no guilt about lying and personally attacking those who don't match his Platonic Ideals - why bother with behaving ethically towards those who are imperfect?

[giblets]

He's an asshat who tries to logically deduce everything and then insist the rest of the world conform to his assumptions.

[DaShi]

When did Ben start using logic?

[Al B. Sure!]

The fundamental problem with Ben is that he doesn't care about people. He cares about abstractions like "marriage," but not about the people participating in the marriage - it is irrelevant if anybody in the marriage is unhappy or if anybody in the marriage is being abused, because The Platonic Ideal Of Marriage is more important than any real-world marriage. It is irrelevant if people enjoy sex or if sex is beneficial to a relationship, all that matters is that people match The Platonic Ideal Of Sex (I recall him chastising a married Apolyton poster for getting a vasectomy after his third child - he was breaking The Rules, never mind that he came far closer to adhering to The Rules than marriageless childless Ben has or probably ever will). It is irrelevant that the Catholic Church has been complicit in rape, because The Platonic Ideal Of The Catholic Church is perfect - who cares if a few children were abused, The Church is more important. It is for these reasons that he feels absolutely no guilt about lying and personally attacking those who don't match his Platonic Ideals - why bother with behaving ethically towards those who are imperfect?

That just means Ben is a good Catholic and a good Christian. I've made the point many times that Ben is correct and gives the Papal position consistently. Jon Miller, Imran, and others are all lying to themselves about what Christianity is, or they accept denominations that are far removed from Christian theology (or they pull up their research on some long-forgotten esoteric sect). That ugliness we all see in Ben is the ugliness of the Christian faith, inherent within the Catholic position.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, I don't believe you have ever been married. Have you even lived with a woman? If not then perhaps you shouldn't be dispensing relationship advice.

What part of what I said do you disagree with?

[Ben Kenobi]

The fundamental problem with Ben is that he doesn't care about people. He cares about abstractions like "marriage," but not about the people participating in the marriage - it is irrelevant if anybody in the marriage is unhappy or if anybody in the marriage is being abused, because The Platonic Ideal Of Marriage is more important than any real-world marriage.

To go beyond that, I believe that the platonic ideal of marriage is more real than the world here, because people change. They get old and sick and die. I am not the same person I was 5 years ago and I will not be the same person in another 5. For me to pledge to the other person, it has to be in something that will not change in 50 years, which is the ideal of marriage.

It is irrelevant if people enjoy sex or if sex is beneficial to a relationship, all that matters is that people match The Platonic Ideal Of Sex (I recall him chastising a married Apolyton poster for getting a vasectomy after his third child - he was breaking The Rules, never mind that he came far closer to adhering to The Rules than marriageless childless Ben has or probably ever will).

Where do the rules say that you have to have sex? I don't see that anywhere. The rules do say, that if you are going to have sex, have sex as it is to it's fullest, with the openess to having children. So I would argue that the rules love sex more than you do because they love all of sex, not just part of it.

It is irrelevant that the Catholic Church has been complicit in rape, because The Platonic Ideal Of The Catholic Church is perfect - who cares if a few children were abused, The Church is more important. It is for these reasons that he feels absolutely no guilt about lying and personally attacking those who don't match his Platonic Ideals - why bother with behaving ethically towards those who are imperfect?

Quite the opposite. I believe that the priests themselves are responsible for their conduct and that the priests ought to be disciplined. You and I disagree on to how that discipline should take place. This is why it's dishonest to suggest that I see nothing wrong with the act. Differeing on the how is not the same as differing on whether or not it is wrong.

And yes, I believe that taken to it's logical extension, that your argument and premiss doesn't hold. If Christianity is only true because of Christians, then it is false every day when we sin. However, that's not what Christianity teaches at all. Christianity teaches that Christ is the standard, and that he is perfect.

[Al B. Sure!]

In Christianity, sex is for reproduction, right, Ben? No birth control for that reason, right?

[loinburger]

Where do the rules say that you have to have sex? I don't see that anywhere. The rules do say, that if you are going to have sex, have sex as it is to it's fullest, with the openess to having children. So I would argue that the rules love sex more than you do because they love all of sex, not just part of it.

Ben in a nutshell - a self-professed expert on something he knows nothing about. You, somebody who has never been married, never had children, and never had sex, somehow knows more about sex than a poster who had been married for years, had three children, and had sex many more times than you ever will. If you don't see the retardation inherent in your position then you're beyond redemption.

Has anybody in real life taken your views on sex the least bit seriously?

[David Floyd]

Quite the opposite. I believe that the priests themselves are responsible for their conduct and that the priests ought to be disciplined. You and I disagree on to how that discipline should take place. This is why it's dishonest to suggest that I see nothing wrong with the act. Differeing on the how is not the same as differing on whether or not it is wrong.

Do you believe that the priests should be arrested, prosecuted, and if found guilty, put in prison?