In answer to your questions, Sleep Monster. "I know that Christians believe that men and women should both refrain from sex until married in the eyes of your god. I can see the sense in that, given that 2,000 years ago, personal hygiene was not what it is today, and they certainly had sexually transmitted diseases back then, so it makes sense as being cautionary. But is it natural?" No. it's not natural. Men and woman are naturally driven to sex in order to reproduce. But Christianity encourages us to modify our natural urges in order to be righteous before the Lord. "Your bible claims that god made man from his own image, which means that your god is male. Does he have a penis? If so, what does he use it for?" We're not capable of describing God's physical characteristics. We experience Him in the ways He manifests Himself in our world...as creator, judge, protector, chastising father, etc. "God made Eve from Adam's rib according to Genesis. My question about that is very different, and it's something that was pointed out to me by a very Christian woman that I used to work with (and still maintain contact with). There are more that 4,000 nerve endings in the vagina. Your god was kind enough to give women one wee bit, the clitoris, that serves no other purpose that pure pleasure. Does he not want us to use it?" Yes, God wants us to love each other and enjoy sex. It completes us in our humanity. But we are called to control our natural instincts,and maintain monogamous behavior within a committed relationship of marriage. I hope this helps explain my views.
I ask you first. So you are obligated to prove your claim first. My evidence of good marriages that started out that way would be anecdotal. Are you willing to accept that then?
Oh dear. This is nothing more than some form of cultural self flaggelation. I do object to your reference to Western culture and that the USA is part of it. The USA has drifted away from its nascent culture and become something the West just tolerates. Western culture is rooted in times when the USA was unknown, and is developing very nicely irrespective of your contributions including the hamburger, bluejeans and rock and roll. I challenge your assumption that you represent Western culture. Or are in fact very important in its expression. The real development created and upholds true personal freedom and is appalled at your attempts to corral women by law into denying her the choice only she understands properly. This potential decision would never even be considered in the rest of Western culture. It is a backwards step in the walk towards what the West has created and held as one of its deepest anchors...personal freedom of thought and control over ones own life. You OTOH are advocating the overturning of one of the strongest pillars of Western development. You are in fact moving towards the Islamic cultural expression of Allah's will being the source of Islamic law. A theocracy interpreted by those in power. If I were you I would be eternally grateful for the ancient traditions of democracy and personal freedoms and stop trying to inhibit them. Real Western civilisation is developing very nicely thank you, building on its ancient principles. Only the USA has gone down a very difficult side route.
Do they realise that if the “invasion of privacy” issue is declared moot when overturning RvW then it will also have repercussions for men? Forced DNA testing to determine fatherhood for a start
2. Vasectomies are reversible. Every young man should get one.[/QUOTE] What a great idea! No murdered babies, no futures destroyed. Same level of state coercion. What's not to like?
As would mine be, and that was the point. And ultimately, there is no doubt that both types have happened. But we have no evidence of frequency, especially from your grandfather's era, since such things were not tracked. Even today, I doubt there are any real studies on the results of forced marriages. Closest might be on arranged marriages in countries that still do them. And for the record, yours was the first claim of came about from such forced incidences. My counter was a response to your claim.
I Point taken: Some observations: 1) Today, most Americans simply cannot fathom the idea of people tolerating (much less being happy) with something (in this case marriage) that they were forced into. But that hasn't always been the case. A) In our current day and age we do not really connect marriage and sex closely. But in the 1940s (as i call it "The Waltons" Era) people saw sex and marriage as closely connected. Thus everyone (including the couples involved) assumed that if they were "having sex" that it pretty much inevitably meant marriage at some point. B) Couples not infrequently lived together in order to "force the issue" of marriage. For example if their families were against this particular pairing up, they could hardly object if the sheriff and the law forced them to get married. C) In that day and age, many people had a certain high regard for marriage , no matter how you got there. Once you were married, the couple and their families felt serious social obligations to "make it work". Faced with that many couples believed they should "make the best of it" D) In this day and age we also have separated the idea of having children from marriage but in that time, children were pretty much an inevitable and natural result of marriage. Regardless of how they got there, most new fathers and mothers loved their children and children bound the couple together. And their extended families. Given those factors, is it really a surprise that many "shotgun marriages" were happy ones for those involved?
I don't see any real point to any of that but: No, we have NO way of knowing if 'shotgun" marriages were all happy or not....but being FORCED to marry is a Really Bad Start....
First off I never said "all" shotgun marriages are happy. I would say the number of happy marriages from shotgun weddings is about the same number as from conventional ones. But it is surprising given that you are forcing people to do something which is hated by so many Americans. Second Many marriages from the best to the worst to the best have really "bad starts" for the simple reason that marriages are naturally high stress environments that the persons involved are among the people LEAST able to deal with that stress.
That would make you quite unusual and I don't believe it anyway.....most people value their right to privacy..
Uh, then why are you promoting shotgun marriages as a cure-all...and you are. What! What am I forcing people to do ? YOU are the one advocating force... LOL, what poppycock! People who want to marry can't deal with the stress of wanting to get married ??? OMGAWD! YOu are stretching in desperation !!
I'm not disagreeing with any of the above. I'll even include getting married because she's pregnant as part of the forced to get married, even in the current era, as that is not an uncommon thing. But I think we are getting a bit off the topic here. I fail to see how any kind of marriage, forced or voluntary, same sex or opposite sex, mono or poly, has any bearing on the assertion that abortion will lead to infanticide. Honestly, I cn't remember exactly how we got here to begin with.
No clue how you got that idea. [/QUOTE] What! What am I forcing people to do ? YOU are the one advocating force... [/QUOTE] I'm referring to couple being forced to get married (shotgun weddings) LOL, what poppycock! People who want to marry can't deal with the stress of wanting to get married ??? OMGAWD! YOu are stretching in desperation !![/QUOTE]
What! What am I forcing people to do ? YOU are the one advocating force... [/QUOTE] I'm referring to couple being forced to get married (shotgun weddings) LOL, what poppycock! People who want to marry can't deal with the stress of wanting to get married ??? OMGAWD! YOu are stretching in desperation !![/QUOTE][/QUOTE] UH, ever used the quote feature???LOL Post 797 is a big ole mess...
Slippery slope. That's called consequences, something I think most anti-choice folks don't understand. Righties don't seem to think that far ahead.
