I agree it is not so simple, and it is like Thomas Aquintas (sp?) was getting at. Nothing in excess, but again anything can be taken to excess and drugs seem to be an easier spot to become excessive in. Excessive exercisers don't really make the headlines. I think people really don't like the lifestyle that accompanies illegal drugs than the drugs themselves.

I've been into critically thinking literature, and as a rule you look at evidence and reasons for something before accepting it as true.

If there is no evidence, the most you can do is treat it as "Unsure, need more evidence." And go about your day. All truth is tentative. The Earth is a spheroid is true until a huge asteroid takes a chunk out of it. Nothing is set in stone hence the scientific method and constant evaluation of our theories.

This is why I think anything but Agnostic to be either overconfidence or under confidence because we simply don't know. Our definition of God may very well change in the future. I'd like to be optimistic and have hope but it doesn't make it so.

There is a reality outside of our own heads.

Well, not objective as of yet, but I say we strive for a certain code of ethics. You don't want to live your life mistaken. Eating your dead father is ok in some cultures but I'd say they are pretty mistaken.

Even in science the Law of Gravity is tentative, until something better comes a long. So morals are definitely human relations, so they can be tentative. It's really hard to call it objective when there are exceptions to the rules, but that doesn't mean the rules are useless.

Like the moral of the boy who cried wolf... you lie a lot people wont believe you when you really need it. Whether you call that objective is kind of hard, but in general it is true. I strive not to lie because I'll need people in my most time of need.

But for them to be relative is kind of an anything goes so it doesn't matter and "I'm the judge of me." and it doesn't allow you to improve your morals. We are just perfect the way we are belief which is sill because we have laws too. Moral relativism becomes absolute anyway... so would that be objective then too? It's really a play on words.

I was asking as an adult for adult. I don't condone under that legally. It's not harmless.

Totally worth the wait.

I'm young yet, but it is more a qualm of marriage viewed today in our social context. It's a problem with the way it is driven ($$$) and enforced (policy). Marriage has a 50% success rate according to US Census so keep that in mind. The ideals behind marriage are not worthless. The concept seems unnecessary in today's society.

And, I don't see how a committed relationship outside of legal purview is any different. Common Law sounds good enough. I'm just saying it's kinda a crap-shoot. And there can be other ways to show commitment like actually NOT cheating, gambling, or all those things that can harm your SO.

This is a tad feeling a tad stereotypes, but I feel it's the guy that loses out (at least in MN) if it doesn't last (She changes her mind about her attitude, or ). "She gets the house AND kids" sorta deal. Is that accurate? Are there any laws about a serial divorcer too? I'm sorta scared out of my gourd into marrying. It's vicious man, it's all a land grab with my generation.

I know there are prenups (SP?) but that seems just as bad only the other way. I'm committed just not financially...

I'm pretty comfortable with the way it is, it just seems marriage is moot at this point.

There is also the aspect of taking advantage of our marriage.

It seems more social convention/ peer pressure. A ring and a ceremony proves nothing on the outcome.

Marriage is more like mirage.

I can kinda see divorce by needing a third party, but the actual union.

And for property rights, how would it be any different from boyfriend/girlfriend?

In my opinion, religion doesn't have much say. But I don't really understand the practicality of marriage in the first place.

I can add, for argument's sake, SHOULD we allow government to be involved?