Casual sex
11-24-2003 | 11:53 AM
#74
Former Moderator
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 52,825
Likes: 15
From: State of Confusion
[QUOTE]Originally posted by magician
Condoning an act for one group of people whilst condemning it for another is only hypocritical if the circumstances or conditions are substantially equivalent.
Condoning an act for one group of people whilst condemning it for another is only hypocritical if the circumstances or conditions are substantially equivalent.
11-24-2003 | 12:00 PM
#75
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
From: Yorba Linda, CA
I, for one, never questioned your support of marriage, although that ". . . someone . . . that you happen to be married to . . ." might be interpreted as a bit pejorative. I, for one, don't merely "happen" to be married to my wife.
11-24-2003 | 12:31 PM
#79
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JonBoy
Regarding requirements, let me put it this way.
Which requires more strength, love, and discipline - doing what you want as/when you want or doing something as it is required or needed (ie, anytime, anywhere)? I contend that it requires more love to do the latter, not the former. See, if you have to do something when you don't feel up to it (for instance), it requires a lot more love to still do it. In your case, you aren't required (by vow) to do certain things - married couples are. Their love is required to love when it's not convenient, not desirable, and not fun. They vow to do it and their love must be accordingly stronger.
An unrequired action is always more honest than one that is forced. The above diatribe makes no sense at all. Please consult those who make your thoughts for you and write a more cogent response.
Regarding requirements, let me put it this way.
Which requires more strength, love, and discipline - doing what you want as/when you want or doing something as it is required or needed (ie, anytime, anywhere)? I contend that it requires more love to do the latter, not the former. See, if you have to do something when you don't feel up to it (for instance), it requires a lot more love to still do it. In your case, you aren't required (by vow) to do certain things - married couples are. Their love is required to love when it's not convenient, not desirable, and not fun. They vow to do it and their love must be accordingly stronger.
An unrequired action is always more honest than one that is forced. The above diatribe makes no sense at all. Please consult those who make your thoughts for you and write a more cogent response.
11-24-2003 | 12:40 PM
#80
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19,713
Likes: 234
What is more honest is not the point. What is stronger is the point - read my responses again and hopefully you'll get my points instead of writing pointless comments.
Loving a person isn't about being honest with a partner all the time - it's about sacrifice, if anything (in my opinion). Love is not about getting - it's about giving (even when you don't feel like it). You don't seem to grasp this but that's okay - not everyone does or will.
I guess that if you don't understand it, it must be nonsense, eh?
Insults get you nowhere, by the way...
Loving a person isn't about being honest with a partner all the time - it's about sacrifice, if anything (in my opinion). Love is not about getting - it's about giving (even when you don't feel like it). You don't seem to grasp this but that's okay - not everyone does or will.
I guess that if you don't understand it, it must be nonsense, eh?
Insults get you nowhere, by the way...