Why Losing Your Virginity to A Hooker is Bad

It is a legal recognization of two people joining together in communion of a relationship

 

I have read your messages. You stated sex was one of the most important things within a marriage and then you went on to defend that statement in such as way as to infer you think it was the MOST important thing within marriage.

People were getting married before there were contracts involved and people will continue to get married even when no contracts are involved. Marriage isn't about the contracts. Marriage is about love.

Yeah, it is a legal recognition but guess what? People will still get married even if it was illegal to do so. Now to someone like you who can't fathom marriage being anything beyond a secular contractual institution will think that's impossible but for those who see marriage as a God given vocation know that marriages and the existence of them does not depend on contracts or legal recognition.

 

No, I was explaining why marriage is one of the most important parts of marriage and a healthy relationship. I wasn’t speaking about any other part that makes a relationship or marriage important because that wasn’t the basis of the topic at hand. People nowadays in the United States and many other first world countries, marriage is a contract, it is a legally ajd financially binding agreement which can alter someone’s life completely if they want to make the choice of leaving. That is the definition of marriage, maybe not 50-100 years about but that is the present day definition ajd meaning of a marriage. You don’t need to marry anyone to show how much you love them lol. Marriage has nothing to do with someone choosing to take someone for sickness or for health until death or otherwise, nor does it cha ge the way go swill value you or your relationship. Stop reading the King James Bible. A definition doesn’t change a relationship

 

Any time you visit a prostitute, it is problematic sexual behavior.

 

That was helpful!

 

Agree

 

Clearly, this will only go as far as agreeing to disagree.

You don't marry someone to show them you love them; you marry them because you love them.

Yes, it does because to take someone despite sickness and health, riches and poverty, for good or for worse, is to acknowledge you love them because they, the person, are irreplaceable.

Sad.

I would never read a King James Bible, lol.

No. It defines it.

 

Well, you said all of that much more eloquently than I would have.

 

Yep, and that makes them a very shallow human being. We have friends whose husband is a paraplegic. She married him that way. He couldn't get an erection if his life depended on it. They are very happily married. So no, it's not the most important thing. I would take love, connection, belonging over sex any day of the week. That's what's really important. All of that falls under the umbrella of intimacy.

 

Ha, I posted my reply before I ever read this one!

 

So for example ole, the copious I mentioned before that have been together over 50 years must not love each other because they have agree not to get a business license for a marriage. It must not be possible to choose someone through sickness and through health without putting a distinct label and societal construct on it, no? There’s plenty of relationship where sex is not a thing at all even marriage, but those are more or less outliers, you can research the reason for most divorces and it is because of infidelity/lack of sex. If these values were so stables they could be solidified by boxing yourself into a label and contract such as marriage, I’m sure the rate of divorce would be much lowers in this country. Now you took what I said for the literal context when I stayed “You don’t need to marry someone to show them you love them” you also don’t need to marry anyone BECAUSE you love them. But as you said. We can agree to disagree but I rather provide facts than an opinionated basis

 

Again I didn’t say it’s the most important thing. One of many, or an important factor out of several reasons, and the ONLY being a singular term are vastly different. Of course sex is not the sole or most defining factor of a successful relationship, marriage, or partnership otherwise

 

And there we go...."Stop reading the King James Bible"

Guess what? The bible doesn't say any of that shit. In fact there are no wedding vows in the bible. This? Or any derivation thereof?

It doesn't exist. Google it. The first result is this:
"What does the Bible say about marital vows? Technically, nothing—there are no wedding vows for him or her in the Bible, and the Bible does not actually mention vows being required or expected in a marriage."
Please don't assault his religion whether you have one or not. You don't have to believe. That's fine. But you also don't get to regurgitate bullshit about it either.

Love this quote!

 

The quote was him taking what I said in a literal context rather than what I actually meant, which i corrected. It holds no weight because with or without marriage you can still deeply and intensely love someone. Also, if you aren’t in the know, the King James Bible has been documented as being created by King James to control his population. I am a very religious and spiritual person but that Is a piece of literature I do not believe in. Next, whatever you’re quoting about religious vows, I never stated was in a Bible or piece of literature on the face of the Earth. I’m saying those are common vows in marriage and common vows that one accepts usually when in a long term relationship. I never stated that they were in the Bible or any religious content. However the Bible does make many references to marriage, a marriage to God, a marriage to husband, and to wife, a marriage to duty, etc. marriage isn’t something created by man but it has been adultered and changed into something other than it’s current pretext. If you’d like to research anything else I said please let me know so I can provide further clarification. Me bringing that up is because he replied to me spouting off something about what the Bible teaches. I’m questioning if he stated that “ marriages and the existence of them does not depend on contracts or legal recognition.” then what is even the point of trying to negate what I’m saying if you are agreeing with me

 

I didn't go research it. I already knew it. I just wanted to pinpoint a specific reference that I could point to that I knew would have surely been present on the web. Google didn't disappoint. It was the very first entry.

Now I will concur that what the government has done is make a mockery out of the institution of marriage. I abhor any government's interference in marriage, the requirement for a marriage license, etc. It's none of their damned business. As you mentioned, and I will concur, it has become somewhat of a contract between two people. That being the case, let's not call it marriage, but a contract between two people. Those who object to gay marriage could hardly find fault in a contract between two people, yet they find a lot at fault with gay marriage. That's another argument for another day, and something I don't want to engage in anyway. Nobody wins those arguments.

As we were taught, the institution of marriage was created long before there were ever any laws governing it. The government needs to butt out and get their slimy grimy hands out of it. It's none of their business who cohabitates with who.

 

Love is between two ppl. Marriage is about inviting a government for a threesome.

 

Damn, another one? Two great quotes in one thread? Love this one too.

 

What should that mean ?

 

If I may @Legacy of Lost Soul, this is what that means. When we decide to get married, that is a decision between a couple who already loves each another. They are making an official statement to the world that "we are one". The government has their nasty little hands into eveything...including marriage. Where we got married, we were required to take a blood test to get married. I don't know if they still do it, but it was to determine if either one of us had syphilis. That's right. Syphilis. Since I work in a hospital, I know what the tests are for. WTF does the government have to do with any STDs we might have? You had to apply for, and yes pay for, a marriage license? Are you kidding me? We don't have to have a license to vote, but we have to have a license to get married? We don't have to have a license to join the military, but we have to have a license to get married? It is absurd. Then if a divorce becomes imminent, we have to go to court to get a final decree of divorce. In our state, Maryland, you have to wait a full year. Our marriage is none of the government's damned business. Our divorce is none of their business either. The exact same argument could be made for gay marriage. Why is the government even involved in it? To force it upon religious groups that don't subscribe to it?

I have come to realize however, there is a necessity for an implied contract in marriage because when it gets rather nasty in a divorce, division of assets and debt become very problematic. I have a friend going through it right now, and her husband is just unbelievable. He was abusive before, but now he's become a real monster. Anyway, I hope this provides clarity to it and answer your question.

 

It’s a cynical way of stating marriage is nothing more than a contract between people and their government, therefore a useless/unnecessary institution for two loving adults. Such is a secular view of marriage which does not view marriage as an institution given by God. An invitation to a man and woman to join in a love that isn’t only between them but also between their God, who’s love communes with theirs, and if He wills it, brings forth new life.