princealbertofb Wrote:In any case, Narnia, what on earth do you mean by THE religion? ....
There is no such thing as THE religion!
The word 'THE' was used in a preposition context not a nominative context, referring to 'the religion' in the syntax of a context free grammar referring to any abitrary religion.
I am dropping my place in this debate as my opinion is my own and whether or not it conflicts or allies with yours is subjective. Your opinion is your own and one you are free to hold.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
Sex before marriage is necessity! no, really, if I'd be a father I'd puch on my kid for this! Sex is a really important side of relationships and nobody can tell "I know him\her good enough" having no sex! so, as I do not want any marriage of my kid with just Somebody, I will take care to talk with him\her - I'd let them rather to stay at our home for sex when they just have no place for that...
•
Prince_Of_Narnia Wrote:I am dropping my place in this debate as my opinion is my own and whether or not it conflicts or allies with yours is subjective. Your opinion is your own and one you are free to hold. Hit and run, eh?  Pity, it was just getting interesting. I was looking forward to being challenged by coherent argument.
Quote:The word 'THE' was used in a preposition context not a nominative context, referring to 'the religion' in the syntax of a context free grammar referring to any abitrary religion.
Okay, change of subject then! Albert is French, but he knows far more about English grammar than I. I stand to be corrected by either of you (or indeed any of you other language students out there), but I have never come across the definite article being used in either a "preposition context" or a "nominative context". What's that about, please? (I'm strictly old school, where I learned in my youth that "a preposition precedes a noun, as by, at, from or to the town" - that's a quote from a book called Grammar Made Gay [honestly!] which is still in my possession. If only all the other rules had been written in rhyming couplets I might have remembered more of them. Nowadays, even points of grammar taught in primary school literacy strategy either have different names or seem more complicated than I ever learned at school.)
Neither have I encountered such a concept as "the syntax of a context free grammar". It's a jolly good phrase and I'm tempted to use it as a title for a composition or even a future cd, but before I think about it too seriously what does it actually mean? I don't understand how grammar might be free of a context while referring to "any arbitrary religion" :confused:
•
I think sex before marriage or civil partnership is fine. Don't believe in ho-ing around but don't want to meet someone whos personality I am attracted to and marry them only to find out later we are not compatible sexually. No matter how strong the friendship that's all it would be if there was no sexual chemistry.
With regards to religion I couldn't give a monkeys about having a white wedding in church with a priest or reverend. If I do get civil partnershipped then a little ceremony with my friends and close family will be fine for me.
SebbyxXXx
•
I think you need to look at when these rules of religion were written and the social reasons for them at that time.
Back when it was written, ‘thou shalt not shag out of matrimony’ (may not have been phrased in quite the same way), women were seen as the home keepers, but, more importantly, the child bearers. There being no contraception at this time, sex before marriage could have resulted in an unwanted pregnancy, therefore ruining chances of a proper, or beneficial marriage.
This, I think, makes it irrelevant in today’s society. You can argue that it has moral value and that opinion is fine. But, I agree with Sebby, I would not want to have a long standing relationship, get married and find that my partner and I are sexually incompatible.
•
Yeah i dont think i would ever get married... unless the other person was desprate to and i wanted to be with them forever...
but yeah sex before marriage is good
•
what happened to Prince_Of_Narnia?
•
Sex or no Sex.
That is the Question??
•
Personally, I agree with a number of the views that have been put forward thusfar.
For me, it depends on the people that form the relationship. I try and be like water in a relationship, insofar as I try to adapt, and give of myself in terms of being accommodating and receptive to change, to make the relationship work (within reason) - my current boyfriend, for example, hates the very CONCEPT of "gay marriage", would never want children, and so on, so I've had to learn to adapt to that ...
... if it were solely my choice ? I wouldn't have a problem AT all with having sexual intercourse before marriage. Sex is an important part of a healthy relationship in my eyes, and whilst it's FAR from the be-all and end-all of a relationship, I think if you're ever looking to get spend the rest of your life with somebody, whether that be through marriage or civil partnership or whatever you want to call it, you ought to both know each other pretty-much inside out, and so I think it's pretty safe to say that gone are the days of chastity before marriage for most people ...
I think that having sex before marriage is only ever a bad thing if you have taken a vow not to have it ... insofar as it's like breaking a promise - if I tell you I'm going to do something, I will do it ... if you hold true to the values and beliefs that state that you MUST not have sex before you are married, then breaking that is a bad thing ... for you ...
... but I certainly think the stigma attached to it as a social evil has waned sufficiently to make it virtually a non-issue for most people these days ...
... it could be compared to people's attitudes towards single parents, or adoption, or having a child out of wedlock even ... all of which have considerably mellowed in recent times, for the better I believe ...
... and though he isn't here (it seems) to speak on this matter any longer, I do take Prince_Of_Narnia's point about there not being any real gay "Marriage", insofar as to my mind the concept of marriage does have deep religious roots, and so gay marriage is more likely making a footnote to the rules, rather than accepting the practice wholeheartedly (from the religion's perspective).
That's how I view it anyway ...
!?!?! Shadow !?!?!
•
Thanks for the reply.
I have been away from the computer and offline for a while..
Now, I am back home in Southern California and will try to do better on here.
Have you seen my old friend on here, Prince Albert?
Jim
•
|
