Marriage is just a tradition from when getting married actually used to mean something in society. Alot like Summer Vacation, another old tradition that's lost and confused in modern times. The only reason Summer Vacation even existed in the first place was so kids could help their families on the farm. Obviously, that's not what kids do these days. So Summer Vacation is obselete, and it's why the USA is falling behind other nations that lack such a system. Not just Asian, but also Western European nations as well.  Today, you can't even get married for status, and apparently for happiness, given that 1/2 of all marriages are terminated in divorce. And climbing.

Xer0\^/

Hmm... I guess this is something I just need to be proven wrong on.

My parent's marriage isn't one I can honestly complain about. Hell, it's better than most, imo, because the spouses can stand being apart for several years at a time.

My main issue with marriage is the lack of people these days who are HONESTLY willing to commit, and that it's still used to obtain material possessions instead of emotional satisfaction.

However, that's an issue I have to take up with Society, not you. My apololigies.

Xer0 \^/

Too lazy to read the previous page so I'll jump in here:

My thoughts on marriage are as follows.  It is a complete and total waste of time an energy.

That said, let me explain:

I believe the actual act of getting married is a waste of time and energy, in otherwords, pointless.  If you care about someone enough to spend the rest of your life with someone, do it.  You don't need some stupid ceremony or to gather all the relatives we all know you hate and just invited so you don't look like a jackass.  Plain and simple, it's nobody else's business.  You aren't joining their family, and they aren't joining yours.  The two of you are starting your own life together.  Who is involved in that life is your choice and nobody else's.  Marriage has become nothing more than a trap that society believes is necessary to keep people together...like it'll stop two people from splitting apart just because they threw a party and signed a paper...ridiculous.  No matter what, it all comes down to whether or not they feel passionate enough about eachother.  I believe in a lifetime mate, not marriage.

...

As you can see, I feel very strongly about this...to avoid another magic flame war incident, I'll just leave it at that for now...

-Twilight Storm | FYI, I don't have internet at home right now and therefore may not be here as often as I have recently.

Xer0...the new avatar is not you, dude.  You have far too much soul to properly portray the ammount of EMO in that picture...please try again, it frightens the children who probably will see it...

-Twilight Storm

I don't think that he really cares if he frightens children...

I also agree that he is far too opinionated to be emo.

My opinion on Love:

Love is not a sexual emotion. Love is something deeper, that promotes genuine fondness and peace between both members of the relationship. Participation in sexual activities of any kind before starting to search for a spouse seriously warps one's perspective on what love is, and muffles their detection of love inside themselves and in others, instead replacing it with a carnal urge for more gratification, without regards for the apparent consequences. Finding love after this takes its place is certainly a mighty task, but still can be done, and still can lead to a strong marriage, granted that you have found your true love inside.

My opinion on marriage:

I know plenty of people who have successful marriages, and the majority of them are Mormons. When you disassemble the components in a successful Mormon marriage, you typically find that both people were brought up in a strong family household with good standards, something that I see to be vanishing quickly everywhere else. If their parents stay together, there is an astronomical chance that they will also stay together. Many(understatement) cases of people who get divorced also happened to have had their parents divorce at some point earlier in their lives. It is my firm belief that the parents' example has a much larger impact on their children than most people would admit. There are people who break the mold and stay with their spouse even though everything else is collapsing around them, their parents got divorced at some point, things like that, though those people are special, and hard to find.

Secondly, never allow financial troubles to come between you two, as another huge percentage of marriages are destroyed simply because of a debt or an unpaid credit card. Try to keep a level head about money. There will most likely not be a marriage without troubles of some kind, and if you can weather the storm, your relationship will strengthen accordingly.

I have to agree with the fact that many people are deciding not to commit themselves, Mormons included, as in a recent General Conference, our Prophet counseled my generation to stop wasting our time with endless dating and immoral activities, but to settle down and find an eternal spouse. Committing to a lifetime of marriage may seem restricting, but you may find that it frees more than ties down.

I honestly wish you luck on finding a suitable spouse, and I earnestly hope that my perspective can help your tumultuous life.

Aw, so my second rant ever has probably fallen on deaf ears?

*sigh*

Oh well, at least some people now know my opinion on such matters.

I tend to agree with Krdax and Oatesy(And whiskey I think)  the bond forged by agreeing to become a lifemate with another person has deep meaning.  I'm just against everyone else butting in on what involves ONLY two people.  That's not to say I believe that every relationship should be this way, or that you should only be sexually involved with someone you have that bond with.  If there is a connection between the two people, and they have the mutual attraction, then I say go for it.  It may or may not evolve from there.  "Waiting until I'm married" is a religious viewpoint centered around the false belief that sex is dirty, which I believe started with the catholic church.  (Just a fact I believe to be true, I am not attacking catholics.)

-Twilight Storm

That post was intended for Xer07, I am fairly sure that you don't need help in this department, no offense intended, Xer07.

A girl who is physically attractive is usually the main reason that many guys will go talk to her. I just try not to let that get in the way of getting to know girls, as I have met plenty of wonderful girls who are classified as 'ugly,' they respond well to attention. I make an attempt to make them feel comfortable and ask about their interests and get into a good discussion with them. My strategy has yet to fail to get a new friend.

In order to avoid the flame war I see on the horizon, I'm choosing to opt out of this conversation.  I've told you all my view, do with it what you will, but I am not willing to continue this discussion as everyone here(Including myself) clearly has a deep seated belief on the current topic, and will not be persuaded regardless of what is said.

-Twilight Storm

And were we doing anything else than telling our own views and also offering commentary (from our perspectives) on yours? Nope.

Regardless, I think it's one wherein there will be no useful debate formed.

I'm going to simply point out that an attack on a military establishment would constitute an act of war. Not an act of terrorism.

I'll also note that there was an act on a military establishment- the Pentagon took a hit too. Further, the point of a terrorist is to sow terror. What better way to do so than to initiate an attack that kills vast numbers of innocent people?

Terrorism is the act of sowing terror. Usually the purpose is to control the actions/reactions of a population, but the most basic premise of terrorism is to sow terror.

Also if you attacked a military installation it wouldn't be as good as a target

1. The military attack would get know where as much sympathy or outrage as a civilian target

2.The military target would probably be more defended and much more difficult to succeed at

3. There would usually be less fatalities than in a civilian attack

This is true; it's a case of a fear response. If the terrorists are willing to attack a high-profile target such as the Twin Towers, then what other civil targets are fair game?

Also true. Military installations actually have specific airspace boundaries.......that are very diligently patrolled, AFAIK.

Also true; a military base is going to be far more dispersed in terms of people than a high-profile location like the Twin Towers or the Pentagon.

.........

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's cowardly, because it really is a valid operational consideration in a total war scenario, wherein two political entities are fighting for their very survival.

Seeing as how there hasn't been a total war since the Second World War however, current operational considerations consider civilian casualties a Bad Thing.

For example, would you call the bombing campaigns against urban areas in Japan and Germany cowardly? I wouldn't; those crews were indeed braving quite a gauntlet of enemy interceptors and some serious anti-aircraft artillery firepower.

However, the role of those campaigns were to not only demoralize the populace (not terrorize them, mind you), they were also intended to disrupt economic and productive operations. Effectively, the bombing campaigns were intended to demoralize the civilian populace, thus making fighting the war unpopular, as well as reduce or eliminate war materiel production capability.