Women, last names and marriage...

[Coney]

I'm not really into the marraige thing (marraige is an institution......who wants to spend the rest of their lives in an institution ).

I don't see why anyone needs to change their sirname in this day and age (tradition not withstanding obvioulsy).........although I can see why it was a necessity in the past........when folks didn't have the administration benefits we have today (thinking dowerys, inheritance etc)

Besides, it would be a brave person to take on my family name, it is rarely pronounced correctly

[Lefty Scaevola]

Sometimes, one family name or the others, carries valuable reputation or influence with it.

[wahine]

HAHA! Yours too Coney?

Mines Kaohani first name Leilani say that seven times fast.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Coney
I'm not really into the marraige thing (marraige is an institution......who wants to spend the rest of their lives in an institution ).

Well, my "institution" has been with me thru thick and thin, has the most integrity of anyone I know, has a laugh that warms my heart, is a great dad, is occasionally very irritating (hey, he's REAL, after all! ), thinks my nutty sense of humor is funny, and is very cozy in bed at night (and other times too, small kids permitting - "hey kids, here's a great new video for you to watch " )

I don't see why anyone needs to change their sirname in this day and age (tradition not withstanding obvioulsy).........although I can see why it was a necessity in the past........when folks didn't have the administration benefits we have today (thinking dowerys, inheritance etc)

I agree with Lizra' post - it is a sign of commitment and dedication to the person and the "institution". I certainly didn't have to, I chose to.

Besides, it would be a brave person to take on my family name, it is rarely pronounced correctly

I went from an extrememly common last name to one that gets mispronounced all the time - oh well, "for better and for worse" (and his better is awfully good!)

[Coney]

Oops........maybe my last post came across a little more gung-ho than I'd intended

Rian: I certainly don't think their is anything wrong with the concept of marraige and folks taking their spouses name(s).......I just don't think it is neccessary in this day and age

[qoute]Mines Kaohani first name Leilani say that seven times fast.[/qoute]

I see what you mean ............. I'll try for the seven times when I'm sober

[Rían]

*sniff* well, a lot of things may not be necessary, but they can still be good...

Sorry, Coney, it just gets my blood up to see a beautiful institution (institutions can be good, too, you know, in the sense of customs, etc.) like marriage attacked. It sure gets knocked a lot nowdays . I should have payed more attention to your "winky" smilie face, but I was too upset by the time I got to it, so I overreacted. Friends still?

[Coney]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
*sniff* well, a lot of things may not be necessary, but they can still be good...

Sorry, Coney, it just gets my blood up to see a beautiful institution (institutions can be good, too, you know, in the sense of customs, etc.) like marriage attacked. It sure gets knocked a lot nowdays . I should have payed more attention to your "winky" smilie face, but I was too upset by the time I got to it, so I overreacted. Friends still?

O' course .......... does ya good to blow a bit of steam off now and again (it does me anyway).

[Lief Erikson]

I'm sorry, but I can't help but feel the urge to take a little stab at Coney's opinion. I hope you don't mind, Coney?

Originally posted by Coney
Rian: I certainly don't think their is anything wrong with the concept of marraige and folks taking their spouses name(s).......I just don't think it is neccessary in this day and age

Let's take all of the moral issues and put them aside for now, since not everyone here has the same belief system. This isn't a strictly moral issue, it's also an extremely important health issue. Sexually transmited diseases are an enormous problem, and that problem is there because of the decaying moral structure. People who have a belief system that requires not having sex before marriage, and only in marriage, are protected from those problems.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'm sorry, but I can't help but feel the urge to take a little stab at Coney's opinion. I hope you don't mind, Coney?

Not at all........go right ahead

Sexually transmited diseases are an enormous problem, and that problem is there because of the decaying moral structure. People who have a belief system that requires not having sex before marriage, and only in marriage, are protected from those problems.

Your right, celebacy before marraige is a sure-fire protection from STD's..........but so are condoms anyone who contracts an STD can't have two braincells to rub together.

[Lief Erikson]

Our country had strong Christian roots, in the beginning. In that time, STD's weren't a problem at all. Now, it is a major problem all over America. Our roots are being deteriorated from the inside, and morals that were once held are now counted as irrelevant and 'behind the times.'

Do you think that the thousands and thousands in America that have been damaged severely by this all have only one braincell? These people were smart, but they have been hurt. Accidental children have been hurt by the disunity in their families. Even if some people know a way to avoid the tangle of pain, that doesn't mean that their action isn't wrong. The wrongness of this new way of thinking is demonstrated by its fruit. Worldwide life threatening diseases, disfunctional families and individuals. It gives a few pleasure, a few who can protect themselves. Information can be processed that will protect more people- these condoms, for example. But is it worth it?

The loosening morals effects everyone. The information available protects some.

It is possible to step back from this place to which we have gone, to set about repairing the damage that has been done. To do that, we would have to reorientate, to refocus, to look back upon what our founders saw and attempt to see as they did. I don't know whether or not you see the need for that, but the capstone that our country stood on is Jesus.

[Coney]

Lief you seem to be under the impression that anyone who isn't married cannot commit to a monogamous relationship

My last long-term relationship was 4yrs, no marraige but it was certainly monogamous.

Do you think that the thousands and thousands in America that have been damaged severely by this all have only one braincell?

Anyone who risks their health by not using contraception and choosing their partners carefully is a moron (sorry but tis my opinion)......if a person cannot control their sex drive to the point where that "one mistake" causes them to contract some horrible disease (or even an unwanted preganancy).......well I think presuming they have one braincell is an overestimate. It takes a couple of minutes to puchase condoms.....and maybe 10 sec's to put the thing on........not a lot of time to more or less guarantee your health.

Information can be processed that will protect more people- these condoms, for example. But is it worth it?

Of course it's worth it!........to have casual sex is a choice.....we need to give folks as much information as possible to make that choice in a responsible and safe manner.

The loosening morals effects everyone. The information available protects some.

Irresponsibility effects everyone IMO their is nothing wrong with enjoying sex as long as your willing to take precausions.

It is possible to step back from this place to which we have gone, to set about repairing the damage that has been done. To do that, we would have to reorientate, to refocus, to look back upon what our founders saw and attempt to see as they did. I don't know whether or not you see the need for that, but the capstone that our country stood on is Jesus.

Are you saying that every race, creed, religion etc etc that make up the USA should revert back to the beliefs that a few hundred founding fathers held?

[Lief Erikson]

I think freedom to choose your religion for yourself is a good thing. Freedom is great; I have no problem with it. But here's one thing I do disagree with: The overall loosening of morals that our founding fathers had.

These morals, in our popular culture nowadays are taught to be behind the times. They are taught to be mere religion; what was taught then isn't necessarily valid now, for we know more than they did.

What do we know? Scientifically there is on problem with it, and those that don't believe in anything but science (Atheists) can do what they like.

That is the surface level argument, but there are deeper issues.

Let's try and see what type of tree this is by its fruit, shall we? And from that let us decide which is correct, what America has now, or what it had then. Whether the morals were behind the times theology, or whether they are something more.

At the time when those morals were strong in our country, violence, sex, drugs, heavy drinking, all sorts of problems that are rampant nowadays were on a much smaller level. We had Christian beliefs at the founding of our nation.

Now, those common beliefs are being erroded and counted for naught, because of religious freedom. Sex outside of marriage is one expression of that, and what has it given us? It has given a few some happiness and pleasure. Meanwhile, however, STD's are a HUGE problem in Africa. In America, they are also infecting thousands upon thousands (Of 0 branicelled people?). This would never of happened, thousands of lives would have been saved and millions others not harmed, if the moral guidelines hadn't been erroded.

Our wealth and affluence grow, our freedoms increase, but there is a point where freedom can be damaging. That is when 'freedom' destroys moral guidelines. This is what is happening in our culture today, and this is why all of these problems I have mentioned are there. Did our predecessors have to worry about the ethics of abortion? Did they have to worry about kids murdering their schoolmates? They had problems, but the common beliefs that prevailed in America protected it. And now those beliefs are being stripped away by people like you and so many others that now think those beliefs 'for a few,' and that we are 'enlightened,' to be outside of that yoke now.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Coney
Lief you seem to be under the impression that anyone who isn't married cannot commit to a monogamous relationship

My last long-term relationship was 4yrs, no marraige but it was certainly monogamous.

But what you're describing I would call "serial monogamy" - one person at a time. Better for everyone involved than total promiscuity, but still far short of the ideal of a monogamous marriage, which is one person "until death do you part", which is the Biblical design, set down by the One who designed us and loves us and knows what is best for us (and who thought up sex, too, BTW! What, you think God looked down at Adam and Eve in Eden and said "Oh, my eyes! What are those two doing!!" )

Also it presents a problem of interpretation. From your comment, you seem to think some form of monogamy is good. Well, how about the person whose idea of serial monogamy is 1 week or 1 day or 1 hour? Is that bad? If so, why? On what grounds? I'm not trying to "force" the Biblical moral code on those that don't want it, I'm just pointing out that when you try to form moral codes with the idea that truth is relative, then you have all sorts of logical inconsistencies.

[Rían]

Also, condoms are NOT very effective against many STDs, including syphilis, gonorrhea and herpes.


Back to topic -

I forgot to ask my Colombian sister-in-law about the name thing when I was with her at Christmas - I'll try to remember to call her and get back to you people.

I think for the wife to take the husband's name is also a lovely symbol of the "two becoming one".

[Coney]

I think freedom to choose your religion for yourself is a good thing. Freedom is great; I have no problem with it. But here's one thing I do disagree with: The overall loosening of morals that our founding fathers had.

Lief, your contradicting yourself. If a people have a right to choose their religion, then they also have the right to choose their own "moral code". Most countries have laws that protect it's people from the truly "immoral".

These morals, in our popular culture nowadays are taught to be behind the times. They are taught to be mere religion; what was taught then isn't necessarily valid now, for we know more than they did.

Are you saying that anyone who isn't religious does not have morals? I know many people who'm I consider to live very moral lives.....yet they do not indulge in any religious practises.

At the time when those morals were strong in our country, violence, sex, drugs, heavy drinking, all sorts of problems that are rampant nowadays were on a much smaller level. We had Christian beliefs at the founding of our nation.

On a much smaller scale, yes, but they were still there. When I read of banditary and similar of the "wild-west" and the practical genocide of the native american indians.......I can only assume that the moral fibre of the founding fathers degenerated very quickly

Now, those common beliefs are being erroded and counted for naught, because of religious freedom. Sex outside of marriage is one expression of that, and what has it given us? It has given a few some happiness and pleasure. Meanwhile, however, STD's are a HUGE problem in Africa. In America, they are also infecting thousands upon thousands (Of 0 branicelled people?). This would never of happened, thousands of lives would have been saved and millions others not harmed, if the moral guidelines hadn't been erroded.

I disagree with this entirely..........these occurences have not happened because of religious freedom.......religious or not a person chooses who they sleep with and they also choose wether to use protection or not.

Our wealth and affluence grow, our freedoms increase, but there is a point where freedom can be damaging. That is when 'freedom' destroys moral guidelines. This is what is happening in our culture today

Freedom may damage certain ignorant individuals, sure. But, what is the alternative? Impose restriction of folks to ensure that they remain celebate until marraige? Hand out punishment for those who do not remain celebate or do get married and commit adultory?.......maybe the USA should adopt a system similiar to that of India.......where eldest male of the family dictates who the children should marry

And now those beliefs are being stripped away by people like you

Yes I personally don't agree with the concept of marraige.....but I don't think I'm "stripping" anyone else's beliefs.

[Coney]

(and who thought up sex, too, BTW! What, you think God looked down at Adam and Eve in Eden and said "Oh, my eyes! What are those two doing!!" )

Now their is an image that is going to stick for a while

But what you're describing I would call "serial monogamy" - one person at a time.

*shrugs* it's just the way I live my life........for one reason or another I've gone from one relationship to another

Well, how about the person whose idea of serial monogamy is 1 week or 1 day or 1 hour? Is that bad? If so, why?

I don't see it as a bad thing at all, as long as it is between concenting adults of course,.........it only becomes dubious when an innocent party is hurt by it, adultery etc.

From your comment, you seem to think some form of monogamy is good.

I'm a big believer in monogamy..........but I also believe that when a relationship is finished it is time to move on.

[BeardofPants]

Morality is relative.

I'm not a big believer in marriage either. Why should I get a piece of paper to pledge my commitment to a loved one? Is my word not enough?

Besides, this way I get to keep my last name. It's rare, and me, my brother, and my cousin Olivia (plus a couple of cousins once/twice removed) are the last of the line.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Coney
Now their is an image that is going to stick for a while

Originally posted by BoP
Morality is relative.

But is relativity moral? What would Einstein say?

*thinks to self "must not post when got less than 4 hrs sleep previous night!!"*

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But is relativity moral? What would Einstein say?

*groan*

Haven't you got some laundry to do, woman?

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Is my word not enough?

Probably not if you want to sue for alimony. Which means you'll just have to get married. But look on the bright side; at least you have the song picked out.


If I got married my wife would have to take my name: my first name. She could keep her last name if she wanted to, I don't care.