marriage

[Elfhelm]

So... and please forgive my daftness... I really don't understand what you are saying.

Let's say a woman, like Patti Boyd, gets married to a guy, George Harrison, and finds out she can't have kids. Then she falls in love with another guy, like Eric Clapton, and they all have a big famous divorce and remarriage. Are you saying that they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place? Because, you know, her second marriage didn't work out either. He cheated on her with a woman who did have hid baby (who fell out a window!!! prompting the song Tears in Heaven.)

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

So... and please forgive my daftness... I really don't understand what you are saying.

Ok, but it is getting more difficult and I only have to do 70 x 70!

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Let's say a woman, like Patti Boyd, gets married to a guy, George Harrison, and finds out she can't have kids. Then she falls in love with another guy, like Eric Clapton, and they all have a big famous divorce and remarriage. Are you saying that they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place? Because, you know, her second marriage didn't work out either. He cheated on her with a woman who did have hid baby (who fell out a window!!! prompting the song Tears in Heaven.)

answer to bolded question: No, I am not saying they shouldn't have married.
You are attempting a reductio ad absurdum via
quo propter hoc.

The relationship failures of various rock stars are sad for the sake of the persons involved, the persons enmeshed in the events, and the society at large. But that is true of any divorce in the event of a marriage or disolution of a relationship not recognized as marriage by solemnification but by common-law/palimony/paternity/maternity standards.

You could make your absurd conclusion, but no one would allow it had validity if you persist in your illogic.

That any party in a marriage abandons their promises of fidelity is cause for sorrow. The inability to have a child is just as pathetic an excuse as constant drunkenness or physical abuse or drug abuse or such. (And, FTR,
I was quite aware of the tragic death of the child, and as a parent, it still opens wells of sadness for the parents and the child. I understand the child was playing Superman and dislodged a window screen in the pretense and fell to his death. The scenario is all too believable for a parent!)

[Elfhelm]

Oh, I haven't drawn any conclusion at all. I am trying to sound you out. I still don't know what your answer is. If a couple knows they can not have babies, should they NOT marry? And that leads to, If a couple can't have babies and therefore doesn't marry, should they abstain from sex? And that leads to, Is the sex between two unmarried straight people acceptable if they are unable to have babies? And that leads to, What is the difference between two unmarried straight people having sex who can't have babies due to a medical condition and two unmarried straight people having sex who can't have babies due to prophylactics? I'm not drawing conclusions. I'm not reducind to the most absurd level. I am pointing out the gray areas of an issue that you seem to want to be black and white.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Nurv, that was just for funzies!!!

heh heh

Originally Posted by inked

NOW, since Ihave assiduously avoided religious references until the one immediately above, I suppose (having taken holiday from the GLBT thread), I could undertake to discuss marriage from that perspective, if anyone so desires!

That was a short holiday eh buddy?

Originally Posted by inked

a reductio ad absurdum via
quo propter hoc.

I think I understood what you said there... All those tree scientific names must have paid off. Thank you Pseudotsuga menziesii. Or are you rubbing off on me!?

For clarities sake, maybe we shouldn't debate gay marriage in here. Or should we not debate it there and talk about it here?

I think Elfhelm brings up some interesting points with his line of questioning.

I have a question for everyone. Now, I don't think this, but I actually couldn't come up with an impregnable (pardon the pun ) argument against it.

Why can someone not marry their close blood-relative (eg. sibling or parent)?

My best answer was the possibility of health problems that might occur in a child of that union, but that has flaws too. It being socially repugnant is a stupid argument, especially by itself.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Oh, I haven't drawn any conclusion at all. I am trying to sound you out. I still don't know what your answer is. If a couple knows they can not have babies, should they NOT marry?

*ahem* #3
Marriage is the union of two oppositely sexed individuals into a union for the continuation and development of families. It is a universal human institution which has been present in all known societies. It has taken various forms within that definition. Thus some societies have polygamy (one husband and more than one wife), polyandry (one wife and more than one husband), and the union of one man to one woman (monogamy). Variations on these types of basic arrangements have existed, of course.

Western civilization has been dominantly monogamous. And for the bulk of history marriages have been arranged and not the result of 'falling in love'. It has been used a political arrangement and a means of aligning finances as well.

Committed relationships between same sexed couples have NOT been marriage in human cultures. This is a concept originating in the 20th century and currently being promulgated as a civil rights issues. Many do not find it to be a civil rights issue requiring the alteration of human experience and historical reality, but one which can be addressed in merely legal terms. So there is a societal/cultural aspect to the concept of marriage. I am unaware of any religious definition of marriage other than the joining of oppositely sexed individuals.

By the by, sexual congress or intercourse is not required for marriage. It is the consummation of the marriage covenant or contract (religious vs legal conceptions, pardon the pun).

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

And that leads to, If a couple can't have babies and therefore doesn't marry, should they abstain from sex? And that leads to, Is the sex between two unmarried straight people acceptable if they are unable to have babies?

I will assume that the question is asking for a moral statement. Age-appropriate consensual sexual relations are legally defined and vary from state to state. Since the state is only concerned with the orderly devolution of property via inheritance laws in relation to legitimate and illegitimate off-spring, it would not apply. (Is that what you intended?)

Christian moral understanding and teaching (apart from ECUSA's current errors) is that sexuality is a gift of God to be used between married partners who are chaste before marriage and faithful after marriage. The proper role of celibacy is that of not engaging in sexual behaviours for A) voluntary offering of self to the spread of the Kingdom, B) for discipline (as in the Roman Catholic Church) imposed on all or certain orders, and C) proper behaviour for those widows or widowers who have not remarried.

In that regard, the answer to your question is sexual expression is confined to marriage alone. So the first would be: yes, unmarried persons should abstain from sex regardless of known or unknown childbearing abilities. The second answer would be that premarital sexual intercourse is morally wrong per the teaching of the Church.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

And that leads to, What is the difference between two unmarried straight people having sex who can't have babies due to a medical condition and two unmarried straight people having sex who can't have babies due to prophylactics?

NONE. Both are morally wrong by the teaching of the Church.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I'm not drawing conclusions. I'm not reducind to the most absurd level. I am pointing out the gray areas of an issue that you seem to want to be black and white.

Morally, there aren't gray areas. Chastity before marriage. Fidelity in marriage. Abstinence otherwise. NO GREY or GRAY there!

Does that answer what you wanted to know?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

NONE. Both are morally wrong by the teaching of the Church.

Not by everyone's Church, or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by inked

Morally, there aren't gray areas. Chastity before marriage. Fidelity in marriage. Abstinence otherwise. NO GREY or GRAY there!

Does that answer what you wanted to know?

No grey areas? Wouldn't it be nice if life was that simple? Morality might look nice on paper, but when applied to Real Life there are always grey areas.

[inked]

Nurv,

Check out your BOCP if Ingraham hasn't altered it yet. And if he did, try 2000+ years of Christian moral teaching and the 2000+ before that by Judaism.

Current "christian" morality as evidenced by the ECUSA and ACA and CoE is a far cry from reality in the historic Church teaching and in the faithful teaching of the Global South members of the Anglican Communion.

The short version is you are accustomed to a Global North vacillating, error-ridden version of that teaching in place of the true item. That's not your fault and the blame lies with those obliged to teach you properly who did not.
Now however, you might want to delve into the matter with an adult mind.

[Nurvingiel]

(About my Church...) Says you! Error-ridden... bah. That is your opinion, not fact. Though this may be one of your subtle jokes again... hrm...

And it is no longer socially appropriate to have marriage laws determined by religion.

Goodnight!

[inked]

Not just me, Nurv! There are at least 7000 in Israel who have not bowed the knee to this new Baalism (and might I mention ~74 million Anglicans outside the ECUSA/ACA/CoE, the billion RC's, and I can't enumerate the Greek Orthodox, nor the Protestants et alia)!!!

[-elfearz-]

**backtracks to page 5**

I just read all the Canada stuff...very interesting!

But to be honest, I don't understand all the fuss...

inked kindly provided links to the reference questions posed by the Canadian government to the Supreme Court (http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/n...doc_31110.html) and the Court's ruling (http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-sc...cc079.wpd.html)

From these I gather that the Canadian government ASKED the Court to provide an opinion on whether the proposed bill was consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court provided this opinion.

I do not see what is wrong with this. And I do not see how the Court's ruling compels parliament to pass the bill...

I'm not sure how many people know this...so...

I'm unfamiliar with Canadian law (what a good note to start on! )...but IIRC the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights of sorts. Meaning it protects the Canadian people from parliamentary abuse of power, by denying parliament the authority to pass any legislation that is inconsistent with the Charter.

(I believe) that the Canadian Supreme Court has the role of interpreting the Charter (this is an inference from having read the links above and from the tone of everyone else's posts and from the fact that i know the High Court does this in Australia...and the two legal systems have common roots and many similarities). This means that it is the Court's job to decide whether any legislation is invalid by virtue of non-compliance with the Charter. I would think that asking for the Court's opinion before putting the bill to a parliamentary vote is a pragmatic move on the government's part, because if the Court ruled that the Bill was inconsistent with the Charter, then even if it is voted on and passed it will eventually be rendered invalid anyway, so voting will be a waste of time. I assume that this is why the government asked the Court to explain the extent of inconsistency (if any) with the Charter – so they could modify the Bill so that it was consistent, and then put this amended Bill to parliamentary vote (of course this is not now necessary as the Court found that there was no inconsistency)

Originally Posted by inked

How do you render a judgement on the non-existent?

If this is too tough a question, I'll give you the answer! You subvert the system by having the judges vote on the concept beffore it is legally in place and therefore arguable or defensible. Then, you have thwarted the constitutional process...even for Canada. GO, CAnucks! Go CANUCKS! GO!!!

As for thwarting the constitutional process...I think that the Canadian government was merely asking the Court for an advisory opinion. I'm not actually sure if the Court's decision here is binding...as the legislation was still in draft form. But in any case this makes little difference in a practical sense...as the Court's opinion on the draft bill indicates how the Court would rule if the bill was passed

Originally Posted by Supreme Court ruling

Section 1 of the proposed legislation is intra vires Parliament

For those who are unfamiliar with lawspeak/Latin, 'intra vires' means 'within the power'. So the Court is basically saying here that Parliament has the power to pass the proposed legislation (as it is consistent with the Charter, and with the federal government's powers as opposed to those reserved for the provinces). This does NOT mean or indicate that Parliament MUST pass the legislation, or that failing to pass the legislation would be outside Parliamentary power. It seems to me that the Court's refusal to answer the 4th question (whether the opposite sex requirement for marriage was consistent with the Charter) indicates an unwillingness on the Court's part to tell Parliament how to do its job. If the Court had ruled that the opposite sex requirement was inconsistent with the Charter, then Parliament may have been compelled to pass the bill – so the Court's approach appears to be a deliberate attempt to avoid any such compulsion (amongst other factors...which the court expressly discussed in the judgment – see link above). But this part of the ruling was received negatively by the articles posted by inked...which I think is a little odd...

"Judge-made law" (precedent) evolves organically. The Supreme Court's (IMO progressive) interpretation of the Charter in relation to same-sex marriages indicates that this aspect of family law is currently in an evolutionary state, and is developing in accordance with changes in the Canadian social context. But the Court's refusal to answer whether defining marriage as between the sexes contravenes the Charter (and its justification of this stance) indicates that the Court does not wish to prescribe the direction in which the law develops (either by compelling parliament to legislate allowing same sex marriages by ruling that marriage cannot be defined as between the sexes only, or by throwing the common law into a state of confusion by ruling that it can)

Opponents of same-sex marriage do not despair! The "activist judges" in the Canadian Supreme Court have not done anything to hurt your cause. IF the tail is wagging the dog (and I do not think it is)...it is not stopping the dog from turning around and heading in the other direction. But I still hope that bill passes!

Edit:

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The idea of having a referendum on the Charter of Rights is completely repugnant to me.

Objectively speaking, it would be extremely difficult to have a successful referendum. It might not be the right legal approach to amend the Charter. (Being a British Columbian, I am quite wary of referendums. When our provincial government came to power they held a very embarassing and useless referendum that we mostly prefer not to think about.) Even so, trying to amend the Charter is an extremely serious undertaking.

If referendums in Canada are anything like those in Australia, a referendum of this kind would be almost certain to fail. It is also difficult to see how an 'effective' amendment would be worded, as the protection of rights to same sex marriage is implicit rather than explicit. I suppose they could write a direct exception...but I doubt they would do this. Limitations of rights generally tend to be more covert...although the recent same sex referendums in US states could have you fooled

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by inked

Morally, there aren't gray areas. Chastity before marriage. Fidelity in marriage. Abstinence otherwise. NO GREY or GRAY there!

Does that answer what you wanted to know?

Thank you, yes. I can't really follow those more complicated answers. I think you spend a lot of time and care trying to phrase things right, but some of the words have multiple meanings and, while I could assume, based on what we've shared, which meaning you're intending, I don't want to. I need to hear the short and sweet version. Thanks.

OK... so...

You say sex is not OK outside of marriage, but it is OK within a marriage even if the couple goes into it knowing they can't have babies. So what I infer from your point of view is that marriage is permission to have sex. I know you also said it is for "the continuation and development of families", but since you also more or less said that a couple who can't have babies must marry if they want to have sex, that part of your definition is not absolute.

The permission-to-have-sex aspect of marriage is entirely religious. There are no legislated acts to this affect, so it isn't political. You might use the word "social" and talk about history, but I can find you as many social and historical examples to the opposite. In the end, in my opinion, the "social" aspects you cite are actually cultural traditions that fall into the category of religion.

I do not disagree. I think if a person is of a particular religion and their religion teaches that they shouldn't have sex until they are married in a church service of their religion with their community at hand, etc., then they should abide by that decision. As I've said before, I believe marriage is a religious institution and the state should butt out.

But I think it goes both ways. I think religions should only seek to enforce their own institutions upon their congregations, and that is where we disagree. Otherwise, in a cultural melting pot such as our country, you end up with the religion of the majority imposing its cultural traditions on the minority, effectively converting to the majority religion by the use of state force.

I think marriage laws are really an attempt to turn secular government into ecclesiastical agents. Governments should concern themselves with civil unions exclusively and allow religious people to have their separate traditional institutions. (And I mean for straight people, too. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about the rights of peoples from diverse cultures to be free to enjoy their cultural institutions.)

Personally, I think people who are considering marriage should test the waters first. I think sex is a good thing and young people should get protection and then learn how to do it right. I teach this to my daughters. I think guilt-ridden sex is very sad and I am proud to say, no child I've raised has this problem. And so far, their choice of husbands has been excellent. And I will also say that I am sure my daughters trust me because I have never lied to them.

peace

[Nurvingiel]

That was a really brilliant post Elfearz. To the best of my knowledge, you are completely correct about the Charter.

Originally Posted by inked

Not just me, Nurv! There are at least 7000 in Israel who have not bowed the knee to this new Baalism (and might I mention ~74 million Anglicans outside the ECUSA/ACA/CoE, the billion RC's, and I can't enumerate the Greek Orthodox, nor the Protestants et alia)!!!

You mean they do want religion to determine law? Many people feel that way, but of course, they want their own religion to determine law. Obviously, someone is going to get burned if this is put into place. If law is determined by democratic process, it will be fair, though not everyone will be happy about it.

I could live with a law I don't like if it's imposed upon me by the government or my fellow citizens, rather than by a religion to which I do not subscribe. Unlike 15 million Canadians, I am not Roman Catholic, for example.

[inked]

Thank you Elfearz, for that analysis. Seems an inversion of the proper order even for Canada however. This seems to be an unprecedented act on anyone's part there.

Since this all hypothetical and without the input of elected officials but purely from an apparently non-elected judiciary, it would appear to be government by judges.

[Nurvingiel]

Sorry Inked, you'll just have to trust us Canucks not to pull laws out of our wazoos. It works. Really. Your not getting it is my fault for not knowing more about my own beloved Charter. I wish I could explain it better, because it has worked well for us since its inception, and it is a great idea.

About the basics though, do you have a problem with this?

Originally Posted by -elfearz-

I'm unfamiliar with Canadian law (what a good note to start on! )...but IIRC the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights of sorts. Meaning it protects the Canadian people from parliamentary abuse of power, by denying parliament the authority to pass any legislation that is inconsistent with the Charter.

I think it's more the court rulings based on the Charter and subsequent changes in law that you aren't fond of, if I read your posts rightly.

However, why do you feel the tail wags the dog?

We have a Charter to protect the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. If a law is found to violate those rights, it will be changed. The Charter provides a guideline of what is right in our country.

[inked]

If it isn't a law it cannot be changed.
If it is not legislated it is not a law.
If it is not formulated it cannot be judged.
If it is judged before it is formulated its... ?


Really, now, WHO makes the laws in Canada? Nurv?

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by inked

If it isn't a law it cannot be changed.
If it is not legislated it is not a law.

Actually, this is only half true. Essentially, there are two types of law - legislation, which must be passed by Parliament, and the common law, which develops organically, through the application of precedent.
Judges apply precedent by drawing analogies between existing legal rules and new cases which arise. These decisions lead to new rules being established. For example, if "automatism" is a defence to murder, and a person who killed someone while having an epileptic attack pleads this defence, the judge must consider whether epilepsy qualifies as automatism. If they find that it does, this is binding in the future (ie it becomes law). In this way, judges make law all the time, and this law is binding without being legislation.

However, legislation overrides judge-made law. So in the example above, if the government passed a bill stating that epilepsy does not constitute automatism, this would become the binding law, regardless of what any court has previously decided. This is (in part...there are other more compelling reasons which are irrelevant here) a check on the power of judges, who, as you rightly say Inked, are unelected

But the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is also a check - a check on the power of governments. As above, laws made by government override those made by judges, for good reason. But without a bill of rights, a government (okay, parliament permitting) would be able to pass absolutely any law it likes. This affords little security to the populace, even if the government is democratically elected, and can be particularly dangerous for minority groups, who do not make up much of the democratic vote. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one such bill of rights.

The task of interpreting the Charter (as well as the Constitution) falls to the highest court in Canada. This makes sense - it would be illogical for the government or parliament to interpret the Charter, when its very purpose is to protect against parliamentary abuse of power. The way in which the Court interprets the Charter and the Constitution is binding on governments. Inked, you seem to regard this as a kind of law-making by judges. I suppose that this is a valid label...but rest assured, this kind of law making is legitimate (for the reasons above). It does not circumvent process.

It seems that the judges in the Canadian Supreme Court have merely advised the government of the way they would interpret the Charter. This does not actually change the law of Canada in any way

Following the Court's advisory opinion, the Canadian parliament may pass the proposed legislation without any legal consequence

Alternatively, parliament may decide not to pass the proposed legislation without any legal consequence

There is even the possibility (if the Court's ruling is not yet binding - not being Canadian I'm unsure of this) that parliament may decide to pass legislation stating that marriage is between the sexes alone. However, if they did this, and the question of the validity of the legislation came before the Supreme Court, the Court's advisory opinion here suggests strongly that the Court would find the legislation invalid because it contradicts the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This would not be circumventing process. On the contrary, it would be fulfilling the very purpose for which the Court and the Charter exist

Originally Posted by inked

If it is judged before it is formulated its... ?

Yes, some reference was made by the Court to the validity of some proposed legislation which is not yet in force. But this legislation has been formulated - it is in draft form.
And fundamentally what is really being judged here is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has certainly been formulated, and is binding
Is the Charter actually a statutory document (Nurv?) I seem to remember hearing this somewhere, but I may be remembering something about some other country. Anyway, if it is a statutory document, then the Court interpreting this is really no different from a Court interpreting any other piece of legislation. And this is how legislation is applied and understood - in many countries (including the USA, IIRC), not just Canada

Originally Posted by inked

Really, now, WHO makes the laws in Canada? Nurv?

Parliament does, by and large. As they should. And this hasn't changed

[inked]

Thanks, Elfearz,

but I would say that common law is the inheritance from English law. In common law marriage is between male and female. Perhaps this is why the judges and the legislature are ignoring common law. But hey, they are Canadian, so what does it matter to me? They can marry off polar bears or woverines if they so legislate! The question comes to mind if the Charter covers that too? LOL (See the post-election analysis I posted this date for an ironic commentary on tis aspect, albeit tangentially relevant!)

[inked]

All relationships are not equal!

Were Joseph and Mary in a relationship?
a meditation in preparation for Christmas

Since the 1960s English-speaking westerners have increasingly used the
word "relationship" so that it is now - along with the verb "to feel" -
one of the most used words in ordinary discourse and writing, including
religious talk.

Any coming together, or being together, for a long or short time of
persons, animals, companies, countries and organizations is called "a
relationship." When two persons are living together, engaged to be
married, or actually married, they are said to be in a "relationship".
In fact the marriage of two persons, male and female, or a "committed
partnership" of two persons, male and male (or female and female) is
called "a relationship." And to top it all, preachers of both liberal
and conservative persuasions call upon people to enter into a
"relationship with God", as something that can be instantly and easily
entered into.

One thing about a modern "relationship" is that it is freely entered
into and it can be freely dissolved by one party alone or by joint
agreement of all parties involved. Thus "relationship" is a word that
particularly fits well into modern western culture where individual
rights and freedom are so much prized and people are on the move.

So were Mary and Joseph in a "relationship"? No! No! and No!

We first hear of them as being betrothed -- "When his [Jesus] mother
was betrothed to Joseph." (Matthew 1:18). Betrothal was a serious and
lasting commitment. It bound the man and woman together in a holy
commitment and consecration as they waited to be formally married and
consummate their union. Betrothal was the first part of a relation of
order proceeding from God's creation of male and female and from the
revealed Law of God (the Law given to Moses and written in the Torah)
concerning human relations. The second part of this holy relation was
holy matrimony. God' will is that a man and woman be united in marriage
and become as one flesh and remain so until the death of one of them.
[Divorce was actually allowed in the Law of Moses but as a concession to human weakness and sinfulness and not commended as being the perfect will of God.

A permanent union of a man and woman in matrimony is not therefore a
relationship which either party can at any time dissolve. It is a
relation of order that once entered into is intended by God's
appointment and will to be permanent - "until death us do part." By it
relatives are gained and through procreation more relatives are
produced!

When Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant, he thought that she had
"known" another man and that according to the law of Moses he was
required to use the provisions of that law to break his betrothal to her and set her aside. Yet the angel of the Lord intervened and told Joseph of the true origins of Mary's baby and commanded Joseph to proceed with their marriage and accept that unique and precious baby as his own, so that Jesus was born " a son of David", like his adopted father. Happily Joseph, being a just and devout man, did as the angel commanded him.

So what could have been an intended permanent union, which had to be
dissolved because of a major impediment, actually proceeded in God's
providence to be a permanent union, a relation of order within God's
creation and grace. By this union came salvation and joy to the world!

Had their coming together merely been a modern "relationship" then there would have been no "Christmas Story" and God's plans for the redemption of the world would have been thwarted!

Likewise, when a sinful human being is regenerated (born from above),
concerted and baptized in the Triune Name to become a disciple of Jesus, he enters not into a relationship that is dissolvable for this or that reason, but into a permanent relation of friendship, peace and union with God, a relation of order wherein he is adopted as a child of God!

A true "relationship" with God is the experience of a relation of order
(wherein a person is an adopted child of God) and while the experience
changes as human feelings change the relation of order by God's will is
permanent! "O Love that wilt not let me go."

The Rev'd Dr Peter Toon Advent IV, 2004 December 21.

link: www.1928bcp.com

[inked]

Check out this week's (January 17, 2005) issue of TIME for an entertaining and truthful analysis of marriage (heterosexual type) as reality versus idealization and the "pursuit of happiness".

"Is there a HITCH?" by Joel Stein pages A37 - A40:

"People have long believed that being unmarried makes people unhappy. ... But a long-term study released in 2003 shows that marriage doesn't necessarily make people one bit happier.

Studies from nearly every country have shown that married people are happier than single folks.

Couples who just live together are as sick as single people.

The only sure benefit of marriage that scientists have been able to prove is that it will lower the odds of committing a violent crime.

And it turns out, it's going to work out fine for me. In a paper...(it was) found that married people have more sex than single people. Why they don't tell you that beforehand, instead of focusing on that honoring and obeying stuff, is beyond me."

But these are to pique your interest. You should find the entire article entertaining and revelatory!

[inked]

*bump - da - da - bump*