18
   

They’re 18 for Gods sake

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 08:55 am
@ehBeth,
If you are a Christian, Spendius is correct.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 08:56 am
@ehBeth,
Sorry Beth --I should have said the usual objective. I realise there are exceptions but I'm more interested in mass behaviour than the individual sort.

The idea stems from the "what God has put together" stuff. Also from Christian teaching. The C of E for example refusing marriage to the heir to the Throne because it cannot sanctify what it considers to be an adulterous relationship.

I suppose my never having been divorced is a factor too.

Bob Dylan has the idea somewhere. It might seem a strange or even a surprising idea to you, as the style of your question suggests, but it is held by very large numbers of people.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 08:56 am
@Frank Apisa,
Or at least, very, very, very often that is the case.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 09:04 am
@BillRM,
I said let's hear Alternative to Christianity.

Your being disingenuous. You link stresses the difficulties of any conclusions. But it has this--

Quote:
Research by Doctor Professor Luke Galen suggests that atheists may be more likely to be less agreeable, but also more open minded compared to religious populations.


Right then. You think of open-mindedness as a good thing I suppose. Well---read those books I mentioned and see what it looks like when not played softball with. It is not a good thing except when watered down to your exact taste tolerances. It's a delusion.

And if open-mindedness is not a good thing and being less agreeable is not a good thing what exactly has your position got going for it? Wishy-washy assholes are to be avoided in my estimation.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 09:05 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
It might seem a strange or even a surprising idea to you, as the style of your question suggests, but it is held by very large numbers of people.


it is. I'm not sure how many people I know (likely less than a dozen) who've divorced in order to be with someone else. I do know quite a few people who've divorced to get away from the person they married.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 09:06 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Wiki has this about Mr Heinlein--


Quote:
He often broke with many of the Bible Belt's values and mores — especially in regard to religion and sexual morality – both in his writing and in his personal life.


Well let see he was married two times in his long life the second marriage lasting for the remainder of his life.

He did live for a year or so with his second wife before his divorce from his first wife became final and then he married her.

There are some rumors that he had an open marriage at times during the many decades he was married to this second wife.

All in all he seems not to be that far out of the norm in his personal life.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 09:11 am
@ehBeth,
People who want to get away from other people simply get away from them. No divorce is ever NEEDED in order to get away from someone.

In any case, if you know quite a few people who have divorced and then never had sexual relations with anyone else...great. But does that actually make the comment Spendius made incorrect?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 09:13 am
@spendius,
Open minded as not allowing some religion teaching dating back a few thousand years to interfere with viewing the real world correctly?

Not allowing your mind to be shut down on such matters as the age of the universe and the earth or evolution and so on?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 09:23 am
@BillRM,
Look Bill--you continually using words like "silly" and "silliness" is ridiculous. It's emotionally driven. And once you do that you justify others using emotionally driven words.

Brittni's prosecutor used "disgusting" in the same way. So you justify her use of that word and the conclusion she drew from it. Brittni being thrown into a cell for five years for continuous forms of low level, maybe not low level, forms of torture.

You thus support the court's verdict. Your alternative is to claim that only your own emotionally selected words have validity for the drawing of conclusions.

You would be better making your arguments without such words. They are pointless except in relation to what I have just said in that they encourage others to have faith in them.

Silly is when an average person undertakes an action which runs the risk of having the opposite consequences to the intention. Such as expending blood and treasure on a female who then gives you a good stuffing. The greater the risk the sillier it is.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 09:26 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
So the threat of a non-existing god punishments should be used to keep control in society?


I must say, after giving the matter some consideration over many years, that it is preferable to judicial punishments. It seems more humane to me and especially if the punishing God doesn't exist.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 09:28 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
No divorce is ever NEEDED in order to get away from someone.


Try that with someone who been known to used her marriage to you to run up bills that you are suppose to be good for!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Being married give all kinds of rights such as to your IRA savings and so on.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:06 am
@BillRM,
Second note it was twenty five years before I remarried however I desired at any cost repeat any cost up to losing my home and bankruptcy to get this woman out of my life and break all ties to her.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:27 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
No divorce is ever NEEDED in order to get away from someone.


Divorce is generally needed to complete the financial disentanglements (at least in this jurisdiction), and money is very often the primary issue that leads to the end of marriages. The "Church" certainly knows that, as a significant component as their pre-marital counselling is finance.

I do think Spendy's comment is incorrect. My experience is that people don't usually leave marriages to be with another person.

They may become involved with someone else years later, but the other person wasn't the reason for the difficulties in the relationship.

Your mileage may vary.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:28 am
@Frank Apisa,
and if you don't believe me, read BillRM's posts just above mine
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:32 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
I do think Spendy's comment is incorrect. My experience is that people don't usually leave marriages to be with another person.


My experience is that people mostly leave marriages and end up with another person. I suspect the idea of a better relationship is a part of the desire for the divorce. If they are truly Christian, Christian teaching considers sexual encounters with someone other than one's spouse to be adultery. Chrisitan teaching considers a married person to be married until death.

Spendius is correct in my opinion.

I understand you think differently...and as always, I respect your right to differ.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:33 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
If they are truly Christian, Christian teaching considers sexual encounters with someone other than one's spouse to be adultery.


You mean Catholic don't you?
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:42 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
I'm not sure how many people I know (likely less than a dozen) who've divorced in order to be with someone else.


The point is Beth not whether they divorced with the intention of being with someone else, an ambiguous expression anyway because you meaning someone else known to them does not mean someone unknown to them who they then seek to find, but whether they are with someone else in a sexual relationship.

There are very serious issues in this case. For example--are there any people in the prosecution of Brittni who have been involved in abortion? I know the Church's priorities in this regard. Especially if they have participated in depriving Brittni's children of her attentions and who are being severely punished as innocent by-standers. And it is no good saying that she should have thought of that because what she did was history for the prosecution. They were where they were.

The suspicion is that Brittni was sepulchre whitewash for well paid painters.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:44 am
@izzythepush,
Hey, your guy said Grand Inquisitor. If you really think someone is sitting around following English television programming, try to get over it.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:47 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
I know the Church's priorities in this regard.


relevance?

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:54 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
and if you don't believe me, read BillRM's posts just above mine


I did read Bill's post Beth

Quote:
Second note it was twenty five years before I remarried however I desired at any cost repeat any cost up to losing my home and bankruptcy to get this woman out of my life and break all ties to her.


What we need to know is did he do the "I, Bill, take you, Mrs Bill, to be my lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part."
 

Related Topics

Sexual freedom is sexual degeneracy - Discussion by Luxin
Harvey Weinstein: Git, ya varmint. - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 04:46:41