# The "new" rules



## Mom6547

I had my elderly bachelor uncle over for Christmas this year. We were discussing all sorts of things from our fun times of the past and world peace... and gender. Some of what he said reminds me of some gents here and in one of the boards I used to participate in. What I think is that some men have a hard time adapting to the new reality of male/female romantic interaction that came about as part of the sexual revolution and feminist movements. 

I remember when DH and I were first married. FIL had a really, really hard time with how we did things. He would ask DH "who wore the PANTS in that family??!!??" and such. He really could not understand DHs reply that we both did. We were a democracy NOT a benevolent dictatorship which FILs marriage was. To DH and I, it was obvious that this how we would do things. I sure as shooting wasn't going to be told what to do and how high to jump. And DH did not want a woman who would. But to FIL the MAN was the head of the household and TOLD what was going to happen. 

It is two worlds, old and new. I think that nowadays there are many more women who want to live in the new world. And there are some men who are having trouble adapting to the new world. They WANT the old world to still apply. But the pool of women who want the old world are fewer and fewer, at least in this geography where I am.

There was a post about strong willed and independent women in the Men's Clubhouse that struck a thought. Someone said that a woman would turn off a man she might otherwise find appealing by calling herself that. I know for ME a person who would assume that strong willed and independent meant nag is someone I would NOT otherwise find appealing. That would be an old worlder who would be totally unsuitable for me.

I am a new worlder. The old worlders don't want to let go of the old world. So they want people like me to fit in their world. We just don't fit. Though the pool of women who fit may be shrinking, old world men need to find old world women. Not try to form we new world women into their old world by insisting we are what we aren't. We aren't deluding ourselves (or angry and bitter, lordy!). 

I think that the new and old worlds are so far apart that old world regularly misunderstand what new world says because the starting point of the conversation is so different. New world can see old world from a historical PoV. But old world has not accepted that new world even exists and can't understand what is being said.

Old world will get annoyed at my rudeness for implying that they just don't understand what is going on. But then old world has no problem calling new world delusional because they are men. Men can call women delusional, hysterical (as with the naming of the uterine removal as removal of our hysterics) or whatever... because they feel we are. Despite what old world might think of their attractiveness, I would never choose such a man.

Ii think men who have adapted to the new world have an easier time of things in general. I think most people are still somewhere in between the two worlds, trying to figure out which end is up. My mother was a new world early adopter, god bless her. My Dad was a SERIOUS new world early adopter. Totally god bless him and great thanks for bringing me up that way!


----------



## MsLonely

New or old worlders, as long as you are able to have a great marriage and keep attracting each other, are good worlders! 
I was brought up non worlderly and I'm a non worlder. I only believe in wonderful marriage, fairy tales & true love.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

MsLonely said:


> New or old worlders, as long as you are able to have a great marriage and keep attracting each other, are good worlders!


Yes! Indeed!


> I was brought up non worlderly and I'm a non worlder. I only believe in wonderful marriage & fairy tales & true love.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ha. I see fairy tale marriage as pretty old world! Marriage is work. Love isn't a feeling, it is a verb. But the main point that marrying someone with a compatible world view is the key I agree with.


----------



## greeneyeddolphin

To me a fairy tale marriage is what you make it. You have to find someone who has similar beliefs about marriage, and that makes your fairy tale marriage. 

I think I probably fall somewhere between the two worlds. I don't want to be told what to do, I want to have a say, but at the same time, sometimes there are things that he does know more about than me and therefore really should have more or even total say. 

I also like the idea of being a sahm, although I also try to find ways to make money in doing so. Staying at home, though, I don't want him having total control of the money. If I were staying at home and he wanted to dictate to me how to pay bills and what kind of money I could spend and call it "his" money, I wouldn't be with him. 

I don't believe anyone in a couple should wear the pants (although I don't want to see him in a dress! ), I think they both need to be able to make decisions.


----------



## MsLonely

Marriage is work, to achieve a wonderful marriage is lots of work. So the fairy tales are the dreams for a wonderful marriage, when true love is found, the dreams come true!
It's not old & new. It's always there. Not very sure if we must find a partner from same worlder. My husband and me come from a totally different culture and we're getting along quite well. We're not far from a target where dreams are coming true.


----------



## Kobo

Funny Post. You take your misunderstandings about what the men on here have said and then write an essay about it. Your fear of being in 1950's marriage clouds your understanding.


----------



## MsLonely

Fairy tales are past, presents, and future. They belong to every world but they don't belong to a particular world. So I think it's non world. It's always there in our hearts before the story was made and after.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

atruckersgirl said:


> To me a fairy tale marriage is what you make it. You have to find someone who has similar beliefs about marriage, and that makes your fairy tale marriage.


No doubt. I guess I was referring to the fact that in fairy tales, they always stop at happily ever after. The knight saves the princess and they live happily ever after. What happily ever after looks like is not part of any fairy tales that I have heard of. That was the work to which I was referring. 



> I think I probably fall somewhere between the two worlds. I don't want to be told what to do, I want to have a say, but at the same time, sometimes there are things that he does know more about than me and therefore really should have more or even total say.


Sure. We all have our expertise. He doesn't tell me how to sew. I don't tell him how to grill. That has little to do with gender necessarily. 



> I also like the idea of being a sahm, although I also try to find ways to make money in doing so. Staying at home, though, I don't want him having total control of the money.


I think there are a lot of these areas that are wrapped up in the gender old style / new style that don't really need to belong there. I am a new world sahm. Both of decided I was the better suited to raising the kids. We agreed on the goals. 

Neither of us has total control over the money. I don't see how those things need to be related at all.




> If I were staying at home and he wanted to dictate to me how to pay bills and what kind of money I could spend and call it "his" money, I wouldn't be with him.


Same here. If the word dictate ever even came up, I would not be with him.



> I don't believe anyone in a couple should wear the pants (although I don't want to see him in a dress! ), I think they both need to be able to make decisions.


I guess I am talking about old school benevolent dictatorship model vs democratic model. My MIL makes some decisions. What to make for dinner. What vacuum cleaner to buy. Whom to send xmas cards to. When a conflict or disagreement arises, HE decides, always. He is supposed to consider her wishes. He is a good guy and most often does. But she has wound up with paint that she hated because he decided it was the right paint. She wound up traveling to places she did not want to go because he decided... For us, we would not paint until we could agree on the color...


----------



## Catherine602

Too right. Men are having a much harder time these days in relationships and they express a rage and misogeny that I never knew existed. I read some of the post by unhappily married or divorced men and it is full of venom at woman in general not jut their wives. I wonder what happens to them when they try to form new relationships do they suddenly like women? 

It's a very difficult time in American society now, not the lest of which is the effect of social changes in the status of women and the easy availability of the fantasy of porn. Why porn - because at a time when male domination is decreasing, porn availability is increasing. Porn fuels the fantasy of complete subjugation of women as objects to service men. What a contrast, boys are growing into manhood with their sexuality and view of women shaped by porn. When faced with the reality, it is no wonder that the rage and hostility is so prevalent. Feminism is a curse woman who donot prostrate themselves in the service of the male ego are man batters and male bashers. It will take a generation or two for things to settle out.

. There was a thread on this forum about advice to their sons about marriage and women by older men.. It was really astonishing to read all the bitterness, anger, sense of entitlement, rage at women was their. The attitude towards the sexual freedom women enjoy was desturbing and sex seems to have been at the center of the oler mans concerns. The thing is these men can not control how their sons interact with women, the greater society does that and society has changed and their is no going back. 

Central to all dealings between men and women is who controls the access to sex - the man or woman. Men have traditionally been in control, and in many parts of the world are still. They have the greater need for it in general so they want the control. When women control access men feel controlled because they need to "jump through hoops" to get it. By that I guess they mean they need to be more cognizant of the needs of women in order to sustain a relationship. 

Up until lately the needs of women had very little impact on sex in a relationship - he had male type sex got releif and his wife adapted to his male type approach wheather she was happy or not in exchange for domestic bliss. Women don't feel that way now,.- a women growing up today knows she can also enjoy sex as much as a man, if she has a lover who knows, she has come to expect that the dynamics in the relatioship should be satisfactory to both and she has options that economic independence has opened. This is unprecedented in history and so we are charting new waters and discovering and adapting as we go along.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Visited the New World. 

You can have it. 

Blurring and watering down the notion of genders, roles, who leads, and who follows under which circumstances all in the name of fairness, balance, equality, or entitlement?

Doesn't work well. Your mileage may vary. 

Problem with adapting to that new world you describe? The 'delusions' are subject to change without notice. It's like having a really bad credit card where the reward points sound great, but you never seem to be able to collect on them - although you do get hit with plenty of hidden fees, rate changes and late charges. There's no up-side to adapting, just the _appearance of an upside_. That's what the credit card marketers want you to believe. I cut up that credit card. Cash is still king.

I'll take nice ass, and willingness to follow thank you very much. You want to believe that makes me a Neanderthal or somehow weak and fearful? That is your prerogative, but you'd be equally delusional.


----------



## BigBadWolf

vthomeschoolmom said:


> IWhat I think is that some men have a hard time adapting to the new reality of male/female romantic interaction that came about as part of the sexual revolution and feminist movements.



Romantic interaction between men and women hasn't changed a bit. 

Not one bit.

"Feminism", as it is mostly bantered about this forum is mostly a collective societal "sh!t test", and in the grand scheme is best dealt with with the exact same techniques as any other sh!t test.

Women, they are still attracted sexually to the same tings about a man they always have been. This is from millenia of years of evolution and is not changing anytime soon.

Whether a woman will choose to be in a long term relationship with so-and-so based on his politics or how softly he treads around her "feminist" ideas or covers his "shame" of being born with a penis, that is zero to do with sexual attraction.

A woman, for the most part she can cling to "feminist" ideas, pat herself on the back for being "strong and independent", continue being cheerleaders for "the cause", all this and decide to tolerate a less than honest relationship with a man, or she can grow old alone with her cats. 

I suppose the cats, perhaps they do appreciate the measure of "strength and independence" in their owners.


----------



## Mom6547

Catherine602 said:


> Too right. Men are having a much harder time these days in relationships and they express a rage and misogeny that I never knew existed.


SOME men. 



> I read some of the post by unhappily married or divorced men and it is full of venom at woman in general not jut their wives. I wonder what happens to them when they try to form new relationships do they suddenly like women?


I wondered if it was just me who saw this. 



> It's a very difficult time in American society now, not the lest of which is the effect of social changes in the status of women and the easy availability of the fantasy of porn. Why porn - because at a time when male domination is decreasing, porn availability is increasing. Porn fuels the fantasy of complete subjugation of women as objects to service men.


Well I don't share your views on porn at all. But I won't go there in this thread. 



> What a contrast, boys are growing into manhood with their sexuality and view of women shaped by porn.


Any parent who lets their child grow up influences to any significant degree by ANY media is not doing their job as parent. My kids, 10 and 7, already have a pretty strong foundation in respect, human dignity and mature romantic relationship. By the time they are able to make choices of their own, I hope that these foundations are strong enough to carry them through. 

I DO think blaming the media for children's moral development is a red herring. WE decide what the media sells by what we buy. Buy things that have value to us, and that is what the media will sell.




> When faced with the reality, it is no wonder that the rage and hostility is so prevalent. Feminism is a curse woman who donot prostrate themselves in the service of the male ego are man batters and male bashers.


It is not the media that is doing this but the historical remnants of old school expectations, in my opinion.




> It will take a generation or two for things to settle out.


More than that I think.



> . There was a thread on this forum about advice to their sons about marriage and women by older men.. It was really astonishing to read all the bitterness, anger, sense of entitlement, rage at women was their. The attitude towards the sexual freedom women enjoy was desturbing and sex seems to have been at the center of the oler mans concerns. The thing is these men can not control how their sons interact with women, the greater society does that and society has changed and their is no going back.


I remember that thread. It made me shudder right down to lamenting that the courts should MAKE women "honor their vows" and give us sex at one point. 



> Central to all dealings between men and women is who controls the access to sex - the man or woman. Men have traditionally been in control, and in many parts of the world are still. They have the greater need for it in general so they want the control. When women control access men feel controlled because they need to "jump through hoops" to get it. By that I guess they mean they need to be more cognizant of the needs of women in order to sustain a relationship.


Best still is when no one "controls" it. When control is not even part of the dynamic.



> Up until lately the needs of women had very little impact on sex in a relationship - he had male type sex got releif and his wife adapted to his male type approach wheather she was happy or not in exchange for domestic bliss. Women don't feel that way now,.- a women growing up today knows she can also enjoy sex as much as a man, if she has a lover who knows, she has come to expect that the dynamics in the relatioship should be satisfactory to both and she has options that economic independence has opened. This is unprecedented in history and so we are charting new waters and discovering and adapting as we go along.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yup.


----------



## Mom6547

BigBadWolf said:


> Romantic interaction between men adn women hasn't changed a bit.
> 
> Not one bit.
> 
> "Feminism", as it is mostly bantered about this forum is mostly a collective societal "sh!t test", and in the grand scheme is best dealt with with the exact same techniques as any other sh!t test.
> 
> Women, they are still attracted sexually to the same tings about a man they always have been. This is from millenia of years of evolution and is not changing anytime soon.
> 
> Whether a woman will choose to be in a long term relationship with so-and-so based on his politics or how softly he treads around her "feminist" ideas or covers his "shame" of being born with a penis, that is zero to do with sexual attraction.
> 
> A woman, for the most part she can cling to "feminist" ideas, pat herself on the back for being "strong and independent", continue being cheerleaders for "the cause", all this and decide to tolerate a less than honest relationship with a man, or she can grow old alone with her cats.
> 
> I suppose the cats, perhaps they do appreciate the measure of "strength and independence" in their owners.


Does repeating this over and over make it more true for you?


----------



## Conrad

Deej,

It's called having it both ways.


----------



## Kobo

Deejo said:


> Visited the New World.
> 
> You can have it.
> 
> Blurring and watering down the notion of genders, roles, who leads, and who follows under which circumstances all in the name of fairness, balance, equality, or entitlement?
> 
> Doesn't work well. Your mileage may vary.
> 
> Problem with adapting to that new world you describe? The 'delusions' are subject to change without notice. It's like having a really bad credit card where the reward points sound great, but you never seem to be able to collect on them - although you do get hit with plenty of hidden fees, rate changes and late charges. There's no up-side to adapting, just the _appearance of an upside_. That's what the credit card marketers want you to believe. I cut up that credit card. Cash is still king.
> 
> I'll take nice ass, and willingness to follow thank you very much. You want to believe that makes me a Neanderthal or somehow weak and fearful? That is your prerogative, but you'd be equally delusional.


New world = 50% divorce rate and climbing. I guess they really are "independent"


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> Visited the New World.
> 
> You can have it.
> 
> Blurring and watering down the notion of genders, roles, who leads, and who follows under which circumstances all in the name of fairness, balance, equality, or entitlement?
> 
> Doesn't work well. Your mileage may vary.


Oh boy does it. 



> Problem with adapting to that new world you describe? The 'delusions' are subject to change without notice. It's like having a really bad credit card where the reward points sound great, but you never seem to be able to collect on them - although you do get hit with plenty of hidden fees, rate changes and late charges. There's no up-side to adapting, just the _appearance of an upside_. That's what the credit card marketers want you to believe. I cut up that credit card. Cash is still king.
> 
> I'll take nice ass, and willingness to follow thank you very much. You want to believe that makes me a Neanderthal or somehow weak and fearful? That is your prerogative, but you'd be equally delusional.


Well yes, I do think it makes you a neaderthal. But that is another matter. That you and I aren't getting together any time soon comes as no mystery to anyone. Not to mention DH wouldn't like it.

I think decrying the very existence of strong willed and independent women in favor of assuming they are nagging beotches is fearful and weak. 

Good luck finding your piece of ass.


----------



## Conrad

Kobo said:


> New world = 50% divorce rate and climbing. I guess they really are "independent"


But are they happy? Or even happier?

Methinks perhaps they doth protest too much.


----------



## Kobo

Conrad said:


> But are they happy? Or even happier?
> 
> Methinks perhaps they doth protest too much.



I wouldn't be surprised if they are happy. Thier need to be seen as an equal to men in all things drives them. If a man leaves they blame it on their stong willed and independent nature. It may actually be a victory in their eyes.


----------



## Mom6547

Kobo said:


> New world = 50% divorce rate and climbing. I guess they really are "independent"


What was the case before the 50% divorce rate? Were those marriages any better? Just stuck. Or better yet, abusive. Swept under the rug because divorce wasn't done. Women advised by their pastors that God says they have to stay married. 

Lies, lies and statistics.


----------



## Conrad

Kobo said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if they are happy. Thier need to be seen as an equal to men in all things drives them. If a man leaves they blame it on their stong willed and independent nature. It may actually be a victory in their eyes.


Except for that small nagging voice inside.


----------



## Mom6547

Kobo said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if they are happy. Thier need to be seen as an equal to men in all things drives them. If a man leaves they blame it on their stong willed and independent nature. It may actually be a victory in their eyes.


You view marriage as a fight to win? Here's the thing. I am one of these new world women you guys think are so awful. In my marriage, I have no need to worry over who has control. Control does not even come into it. I bust my ass to make my husband happy. He doesn't have to control or manipulate to get bjs or sex because *I want him to have them even when I don't feel like it.* We don't use words like control, lead, follow. We use words like respect, communication, love, tenderness and caring.

Crazy talk. I know.


----------



## Kobo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> What was the case before the 50% divorce rate? Were those marriages any better? Just stuck. Or better yet, abusive. Swept under the rug because divorce wasn't done. Women advised by their pastors that God says they have to stay married.
> 
> Lies, lies and statistics.


Yup 50% of marriages were abusive, horrible unions before the NWO.


----------



## Kobo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> You view marriage as a fight to win? Here's the thing. I am one of these new world women you guys think are so awful. In my marriage, I have no need to worry over who has control. Control does not even come into it. I bust my ass to make my husband happy. He doesn't have to control or manipulate to get bjs or sex because *I want him to have them even when I don't feel like it.* We don't use words like control, lead, follow. We use words like respect, communication, love, tenderness and caring.
> 
> Crazy talk. I know.



No you view it as win/lose. Which is why you are scared of words like control, lead, follow. You believe they imply someone is winning and someone is losing in the relationship.


----------



## Mom6547

Kobo said:


> Yup 50% of marriages were abusive, horrible unions before the NWO.


No there is certainly more to it than that. With freedom comes abuse of freedom. I think that the easy out that divorce provides makes people careless as they enter marriage. This is a bad thing.

But I think that one should take a complete look at the past and not just glorify a single point statistic. The freedom to exit bad marriages is a net good thing. The myth that children are best served when the parents stay together, regardless of the model of bad relationship that is in place, is being shattered. And that is a net good thing. 

Only time will tell if more and more people will be able replace the control based family with a democratic family based on mutual respect. I am hopeful!


----------



## Kobo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> No there is certainly more to it than that. With freedom comes abuse of freedom. I think that the easy out that divorce provides makes people careless as they enter marriage. This is a bad thing.
> 
> But I think that one should take a complete look at the past and not just glorify a single point statistic. The freedom to exit bad marriages is a net good thing. The myth that children are best served when the parents stay together, regardless of the model of bad relationship that is in place, is being shattered. And that is a net good thing.
> 
> Only time will tell if more and more people will be able replace the control based family with a democratic family based on mutual respect. I am hopeful!




Actually the New World will bring with it less people getting married and more out of wedlock births. The "democratic family" will be dead before it gets started.


----------



## Deejo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Good luck finding your piece of ass.


Already got it. Thanks.

And for the record, she's strong and independent. She didn't need to advertise it. She doesn't feel compelled to demonstrate it. And if she did, it wouldn't be nearly as sexy.


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> Already got it. Thanks.
> 
> And for the record, she's strong and independent. She didn't need to advertise it. She doesn't feel compelled to demonstrate it. And if she did, it wouldn't be nearly as sexy.


Glad to hear it.


----------



## Trenton

I don't know. I am happy in this new world. I can't imagine living in a different one. I'm open to improvements and possibilities and think if the old world works for some that is fine but I expect there will be no going back. As those leftover from the old world grow older and eventually pass away, the new world will be allowed to flourish more and more with only a few desperate men with shattered egos, holding on to old world standards.

Women were trapped in marriages without a way to get out. It was obviously great for the male gender who could do and take what they wanted. If you have to debate this fact then you care so little about women that it's saddening.

The divorce rate that I just posted about Taiwan speaks to this same thing. It has increased because women were systematically allowed to be abused and if given the choice between systematic abuse and freedom (with or without a man) women will choose the later.

The good news is that there are better men out there that can and want to live with and fall in love with new world women that are allowed to have expectations and succeed on their own merits. This new world is forcing both men and women to re-get to know one another, wake up and treat one another like human beings rather than outdated stereotypes.


----------



## Mom6547

Kobo said:


> Actually the New World will bring with it less people getting married and more out of wedlock births. The "democratic family" will be dead before it gets started.


That may be true. Forcing women to stay in horrible marriages and model dysfunctional relationships is a superior situation for children?

For my part, I don't view marriage certificate as a particularly useful part of parenting. I know many couples who parent successfully without tax breaks. I know single people, unmarried straight and gay people, polyamorous groups all raising their children exceptionally well.

If we want social institutions that benefit kids, we should focus on the kids.


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> Already got it. Thanks.
> 
> And for the record, she's strong and independent. She didn't need to advertise it. She doesn't feel compelled to demonstrate it. And if she did, it wouldn't be nearly as sexy.


Yes and if you were confident in the piece of ass you wouldn't have to advertise her, pretend to not defend her as strong, and passive aggressively tell women who are saying they are strong and confident that they aren't nearly as sexy as women who keep their mouths shut.


----------



## Deejo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Glad to hear it.


No you aren't. You'd prefer if I was lonely and self-righteous.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> Women were trapped in marriages without a way to get out. It was obviously great for the male gender who could do and take what they wanted.


I don't even agree with this. If we take the extreme example of the abuser, that is not a happy man (or woman). That is not a person who is full of love and care.

My husband and I joke that we dragged each other to adulthood kicking and screaming. But we have GROWN. A man OR woman in a control based relationship is not going to have the challenge to learn and grow, I don't think.




> The good news is that there are better men out there that can and want to live with and fall in love with new world women that are allowed to have expectations and succeed on their own merits. This new world is forcing both men and women to re-get to know one another, wake up and treat one another like human beings rather than outdated stereotypes.


Yah something like that makes sense.


----------



## RandomDude

New world... old world... both makes me thankful I'm still somewhat an "uncivilised" "primitive" "barbarian" at heart.


----------



## Conrad

This is quite the echo chamber.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Yes and if you were confident in the piece of ass you wouldn't have to advertise her, pretend to not defend her as strong, and passive aggressively tell women who are saying they are strong and confident that they aren't nearly as sexy as women who keep this mouths shut.


No. I like waving her around like a trophy for all of my stellar work at control and manipulation. You're probably right about the other stuff though ...

You wouldn't argue about the ass. I'm pretty sure.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> I don't know. I am happy in this new world.


Yes, yes, where your husband demands you de-friend ex's on Facebook and you meekly comply.


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> No you aren't. You'd prefer if I was lonely and self-righteous.


I hope the winky means you are just joking. Why would I wish anything but the best for you?


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> No. I like waving her around like a trophy for all of my stellar work at control and manipulation. You're probably right about the other stuff though ...
> 
> You wouldn't argue about the ass. I'm pretty sure.


Pictures!


----------



## Trenton

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I don't even agree with this. If we take the extreme example of the abuser, that is not a happy man (or woman). That is not a person who is full of love and care.
> 
> My husband and I joke that we dragged each other to adulthood kicking and screaming. But we have GROWN. A man OR woman in a control based relationship is not going to have the challenge to learn and grow, I don't think.


I think the abuse was systematic. If a woman is raised to believe that her role is to please her husband and give birth to children, only the exceptional will break away into something different. If a man is raised to believe he must provide for a family but can cheat, drink, gamble and do whatever else he pleases if he provides, then only the exceptional will do differently.

So, I guess what I'm saying is the norm has already changed. There is no going back, there is just waiting for the outdated to flush or adapt.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> I think the abuse was systematic. If a woman is raised to believe that her role is to please her husband and give birth to children, only the exceptional will break away into something different. If a man is raised to believe he must provide for a family but can cheat, drink, gamble and do whatever else he pleases if he provides, then only the exceptional will do differently.


What I disagreed with is that the man was really in the best place to be called HAPPY in this scenario.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> Yes, yes, where your husband demands you de-friend ex's on Facebook and you meekly comply.


There is a time for respect when it is deserved.


----------



## Trenton

vthomeschoolmom said:


> What I disagreed with is that the man was really in the best place to be called HAPPY in this scenario.


Ahha, I missed that and never considered that before, interesting observation. I have to think on it.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> There is a time for respect when it is deserved.


ROFLMFAO

Just deny it to everyone else. Really rich.


----------



## Kobo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> That may be true. Forcing women to stay in horrible marriages and model dysfunctional relationships is a superior situation for children?


Don't believe I ever stated that. Now what percentage of marriages were horrible marriages and model dysfunctional relationships in the old world? 

The education of our children is ranked lower than they've been since the rankings started. Our teenage girls are becoming pregnant at increasing rates. Our Drop out rates continue to increase. You may say it is coincidental. I believe it comes back to a weakened family unit that is prevelant in this new world.


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> No. I like waving her around like a trophy for all of my stellar work at control and manipulation. You're probably right about the other stuff though ...
> 
> You wouldn't argue about the ass. I'm pretty sure.


The sad part is the first sentence may be a bit inflated but it is based on truth.

I wouldn't argue about the ass, no interest.


----------



## Trenton

Kobo said:


> Don't believe I ever stated that. Now what percentage of marriages were horrible marriages and model dysfunctional relationships in the old world?
> 
> The education of our children is ranked lower than they've been since the rankings started. Our teenage girls are becoming pregnant at increasing rates. Our Drop out rates continue to increase. You may say it is coincidental. I believe it comes back to a weakened family unit that is prevelant in this new world.


Interesting statistic based on actual fact Kobo, women receive more college degrees than men.


----------



## Kobo

Conrad said:


> Yes, yes, where your husband demands you de-friend ex's on Facebook and you meekly comply.


LOL. That's probably as close as he can say "Go make me a sandwich" though.


----------



## Deejo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I hope the winky means you are just joking. Why would I wish anything but the best for you?


Yes.

I was going to say:
"You'd prefer if was lonely, self-righteous and sitting around in my underwear posting to an online forum"

But then I realized what I was wearing and doing ...

My position is still unchanged. I'm not going to argue with the results for anyone that is successfully, and happily, conducting their marriage. I tried to execute the kind of marriage plan you describe. Thought partner was onboard. Thought wrong. It was a spectacular failure.

My beliefs and expectations have changed. I go with what works. Throw out what doesn't. Occasionally at this point in my life, and in my circumstances; what doesn't work may sometimes be the partner.


----------



## Kobo

Trenton said:


> Interesting statistic based on actual fact Kobo, women receive more college degrees than men.


Great


----------



## Conrad

Kobo said:


> LOL. That's probably as close as he can say "Go make me a sandwich" though.


Kobo,

The unwillingness to face the mirror here is breathtaking.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> ROFLMFAO
> 
> Just deny it to everyone else. Really rich.


You are like an angry child with a large vocabulary.


----------



## Trenton

Kobo said:


> Great


That's probably as close as you can say to, "Don't give me statistics that don't back up my outdated, ignorant view of the world!"


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> You are like an angry child with a large vocabulary.


I'm in complete command of myself. And, to prove who isn't - which one of us got personal?


----------



## Mrs.LonelyGal

+1, Trenton.
I love this thread!


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> There is a time for respect when it is deserved.


or kindness or accommodation or just plain loving care. I did not read the conversation in which you described the interaction. But when my husband asks something of me, I try my best to do it. That's love. When I ask him to do something, he tries his best to do it. That's love. Who is demanding? Who is in control?


----------



## Kobo

Conrad said:


> Kobo,
> 
> The unwillingness to face the mirror here is breathtaking.


They're scared. They believe that a large number of relationships in the "old world" were abusive, horrible, with women being a victim the vast majority of the time. They want to distance themselves from what they believe is a weaker woman. So even though their men would never bring them in harms way, saying he is their leader is a no-no. The fact is the women of the "old world" were much stronger than the "strong willed-independent" ladies on TAM


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> I'm in complete command of myself. And, to prove who isn't - which one of us got personal?


Which is more personal Conrad, citing my perception about how you behave on this internet forum or bringing up old posts that I made about my personal life to try to use them against me?


----------



## Conrad

Empirical evidence of behavior vs. an insulting remark?

Wow - it's worse than I thought.


----------



## Kobo

Trenton said:


> That's probably as close as you can say to, "Don't give me statistics that don't back up my outdated, ignorant view of the world!"


No actually it has nothing to do with this thread as I didn't say men get more degrees than women or that women can't get degrees. But whatever makes you sleep better hun.


----------



## RandomDude

I can't believe folks are having this debate tbh =/


----------



## Mom6547

Kobo said:


> Don't believe I ever stated that. Now what percentage of marriages were horrible marriages and model dysfunctional relationships in the old world?


No no, I did not mean you said that. If I am understanding your PoV correctly, you are using one statistic to uphold the notion that old school marriage values were superior to what is going on today. I am saying you are looking at the situation narrowly and not at the bigger picture of some of the negative aspects of that time.



> The education of our children is ranked lower than they've been since the rankings started. Our teenage girls are becoming pregnant at increasing rates.


Well I would say two things to that. I see no causation here. I don't even see any reason to claim correlation. And around here teen pregnancy rates are DROPPING. I am not sure where you are, so it is hard to know where the teen rates are actually going up.




> Our Drop out rates continue to increase. You may say it is coincidental.


I don't know. I have no evidence one way or the other. I DO know that drop out rates around here are going down.



> I believe it comes back to a weakened family unit that is prevelant in this new world.


Well I guess we would have to have some actual information to conclude that.


----------



## Trenton

Kobo said:


> They're scared. They believe that a large number of relationships in the "old world" were abusive, horrible, with women being a victim the vast majority of the time. They want to distance themselves from what they believe is a weaker woman. So even though their men would never bring them in harms way, saying he is their leader is a no-no. The fact is the women of the "old world" were much stronger than the "strong willed-independent" ladies on TAM


No my dear, you're resentful, I'm happy.


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> Yes.
> 
> I was going to say:
> "You'd prefer if was lonely, self-righteous and sitting around in my underwear posting to an online forum"
> 
> But then I realized what I was wearing and doing ...
> 
> My position is still unchanged. I'm not going to argue with the results for anyone that is successfully, and happily, conducting their marriage. I tried to execute the kind of marriage plan you describe. Thought partner was onboard. Thought wrong. It was a spectacular failure.


I guess my point would be that you married the wrong person FOR YOU. You did what words FOR YOU. I don't see the point that other posters take that that it works for US is somehow backassward, in some kind of denial to the true state of women... 







> My beliefs and expectations have changed. I go with what works. Throw out what doesn't. Occasionally at this point in my life, and in my circumstances; what doesn't work may sometimes be the partner.


Of course.


----------



## Trenton

Kobo said:


> No actually it has nothing to do with this thread as I didn't say men get more degrees than women or that women can't get degrees. But whatever makes you sleep better hun.


You typed ridiculous statistics to try to back up your outdated world view. I gave you a real statistic that backs up my view that women are doing well and achieving.


----------



## Kobo

Trenton said:


> No my dear, you're resentful, I'm happy.


I actually have nothing to be resentful for. Never divorced, married 11+ years, beautiful wife, 2 beautiful children, sex multiple times a week, BJs to orgasm, no major issues, and a wife that isn't so insecure that she needs to yell at every turn how strong willed and independent she is.


----------



## Kobo

Trenton said:


> You typed ridiculous statistics to try to back up your outdated world view. I gave you a real statistic that backs up my view that women are doing well and achieving.


That's great but successful/unsuccessful women is not a topic of this thread. This thread is about the new world vs the old world relationship structure. My stats were related to how the new world is not doing so well as far as promoting strong relationships. Your stat was BS in an attempt to shift the discussion. But it is to be expected by you new worlders


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> Empirical evidence of behavior vs. an insulting remark?
> 
> Wow - it's worse than I thought.


Insulting remark based upon quantitative analysis or the only tool used to interpret empirical evidence is biased judgement?

It is worse than I thought as well.


----------



## Deejo

RandomDude said:


> I can't believe folks are having this debate tbh =/


Which one? 

Gender neutral, non-role-based marriages, asses, or college graduation rates?


----------



## Kobo

Deejo said:


> Which one?
> 
> Gender neutral, non-role-based marriages, asses, or college graduation rates?


 College graduation rates of course.


----------



## Trenton

Kobo said:


> That's great but successful/unsuccessful women is not a topic of this thread. This thread is about the new world vs the old world relationship structure. My stats were related to how the new world is not doing so well as far as promoting strong relationships. Your stat was BS in an attempt to shift the discussion. But it is to be expected by you new worlders


Give me links to your stats, please.

The success of women outside of the divorce rate is relative to the discussion as it speaks to the capabilities of women. The old world holds back the abilities of women believing that men are better able to make decisions and succeed/provide than women. That women are too emotional, illogical and unstable to succeed without the strong hand of a strong man. It's BS.


----------



## Mom6547

Kobo said:


> They're scared. They believe that a large number of relationships in the "old world" were abusive, horrible, with women being a victim the vast majority of the time.


I don't think ANYONE but you spoke of RATES of horrid abuse. It is, sadly, true that the rate of female instigated domestic violence is on the rise. And that formerly the vast majority of domestic abuse was perpetrated by men.

But that is neither here nor there. The POINT is that holding of old school marriage as superior very often fails to take into account these negative elements. The rate of occurrence of these negative elements is not something that anyone but you has brought up. 


For my part, I have no reason to be scared. I am happily married. I sat on the couch with my husband last night discussing our marriage. We spent half the night getting frisky then a significant portion of the morning. I am happy in the new world.



> They want to distance themselves from what they believe is a weaker woman.


Your words. Not mine. I think old world women had to be INORDINATELY strong. They had to master the art of feminine wiles to get their needs met. They had to tolerate being treated like a pet or a child. They had to live under a set of rule set for them by others, man, Church, society, law.

That is a strength I doubt I possess. I would have wound up in the funny farm.




> So even though their men would never bring them in harms way, saying he is their leader is a no-no.


Well even if my man never brought me to harms way, I am no pet to be pat. I am no child to be scolded. So yah, not being in harm's way is not good enough for me.


> The fact is the women of the "old world" were much stronger than the "strong willed-independent" ladies on TAM


Well I cannot speak to the other women on TAM. But I have nothing but respect for these old world women. From tolerating all the way through suffrage movement and feminist movement. Go girl!


----------



## Trenton

Kobo said:


> I actually have nothing to be resentful for. Never divorced, married 11+ years, beautiful wife, 2 beautiful children, sex multiple times a week, BJs to orgasm, no major issues, and a wife that isn't so insecure that she needs to yell at every turn how strong willed and independent she is.


So you say, so you say.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> Insulting remark based upon quantitative analysis or the only tool used to interpret empirical evidence is biased judgement?
> 
> It is worse than I thought as well.


ROFLMFAO - again!


----------



## RandomDude

I have to sleep after this, work in 3-4 hrs...

In regards to "New World"/"Old World", I've noticed modern society has gone the other extreme. The idea of women being lesser able then men I find rather laughable, especially when there have been many remarkable and influential women in my people's history. I want my daughter to be just like that, it's in her blood after all as I say.

However, I don't think modern feminism has solved the problem either. Women had no power, that is true. Men had power, but with that power comes responsibility. What modern feminism has done has given women power, but in many cases, none of the responsibility.


----------



## Kobo

Trenton said:


> Give me links to your stats, please.
> 
> The success of women outside of the divorce rate is relative to the discussion as it speaks to the capabilities of women. The old world holds back the abilities of women believing that men are better able to make decisions and succeed/provide than women. That women are too emotional, illogical and unstable to succeed without the strong hand of a strong man. It's BS.


I won't search long and hard for the statistics you desire because you already know them to be true:

Divorce Statistics, Divorce Rates in US


No one holds back the abilities of women. Stop looking at men as these evil creatures just trying to keep you barefoot and pregnant. The people on this board are not abusive men and are not looking to hold thier ladies back.


----------



## Kobo

Trenton said:


> So you say, so you say.


At least now I know you really are a woman after that response


----------



## Trenton

Kobo said:


> I won't search long and hard for the statistics you desire because you already know them to be true:
> 
> Divorce Statistics, Divorce Rates in US
> 
> 
> No one holds back the abilities of women. Stop looking at men as these evil creatures just trying to keep you barefoot and pregnant. The people on this board are not abusive men and are not looking to hold thier ladies back.


I knew you would not be able to come up with those statistics because they were made up by you to back up your viewpoint. I can easily post a link to mine. See the difference? 

I see some women just as I see some men as holding back both men and women. I would like us to be looked at as individuals rather than walking gender stereotypes.


----------



## Kobo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I don't think ANYONE but you spoke of RATES of horrid abuse. It is, sadly, true that the rate of female instigated domestic violence is on the rise. And that formerly the vast majority of domestic abuse was perpetrated by men.
> 
> But that is neither here nor there. The POINT is that holding of old school marriage as superior very often fails to take into account these negative elements. The rate of occurrence of these negative elements is not something that anyone but you has brought up.
> 
> 
> For my part, I have no reason to be scared. I am happily married. I sat on the couch with my husband last night discussing our marriage. We spent half the night getting frisky then a significant portion of the morning. I am happy in the new world.
> 
> 
> Your words. Not mine. I think old world women had to be INORDINATELY strong. They had to master the art of feminine wiles to get their needs met. They had to tolerate being treated like a pet or a child. They had to live under a set of rule set for them by others, man, Church, society, law.
> 
> That is a strength I doubt I possess. I would have wound up in the funny farm.
> 
> 
> 
> Well even if my man never brought me to harms way, I am no pet to be pat. I am no child to be scolded. So yah, not being in harm's way is not good enough for me.
> 
> Well I cannot speak to the other women on TAM. But I have nothing but respect for these old world women. From tolerating all the way through suffrage movement and feminist movement. Go girl!


The divorce rates today are the result of the new world. Unless close to 50% of marriages in the old world were abusive then I would believe the old school marriage was a stronger union.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> ROFLMFAO - again!


I knew you'd find the humor in that response.


----------



## Mom6547

RandomDude said:


> I have to sleep after this, work in 3-4 hrs...
> 
> In regards to "New World"/"Old World", I've noticed modern society has gone the other extreme.


I agree with this. It is like a pulled pendulum that goes too far before settling in the middle. I don't like
- the casualness with which people ENTER marriage, seems to me. I think that many marriage failures happen at the vows, not at the other end.
- the seeming thoughtlessness that goes into having children. Fail at your relationships all you like. But for heaven's sake don't screw up children.



> The idea of women being lesser able then men I find rather laughable, especially when there have been many remarkable and influential women in my people's history. I want my daughter to be just like that, it's in her blood after all as I say.
> 
> However, I don't think modern feminism has solved the problem either. Women had no power, that is true. Men had power, but with that power comes responsibility. What modern feminism has done has given women power, but in many cases, none of the responsibility.


Yes it is true that some women have benefited from the freedom while abdicating the responsibility. For every forward motion, there will be people who use it to their own advantage being either lacking in insight or just plain selfish. How this gets solved is a conundrum since true responsibility is something that is accepted and cannot be forced.

Some of the things I LIKE about the new order include men being considered as every bit as important as women in the raising of children. I like that we are seeing the beginning of REAL gender equality in the workplace, INCLUDING the notion that family leave lessens your credential for advancement/earning, male and female. Men are starting to speak out against domestic violence that also affects them.


----------



## Kobo

Trenton said:


> I knew you would not be able to come up with those statistics because they were made up by you to back up your viewpoint. I can easily post a link to mine. See the difference?
> 
> I see some women just as I see some men as holding back both men and women. I would like us to be looked at as individuals rather than walking gender stereotypes.


If you can't see the downward trend based on that link then you really do need a man to lead you.


----------



## Trenton

RandomDude said:


> I have to sleep after this, work in 3-4 hrs...
> 
> In regards to "New World"/"Old World", I've noticed modern society has gone the other extreme. The idea of women being lesser able then men I find rather laughable, especially when there have been many remarkable and influential women in my people's history. I want my daughter to be just like that, it's in her blood after all as I say.
> 
> However, I don't think modern feminism has solved the problem either. Women had no power, that is true. Men had power, but with that power comes responsibility. What modern feminism has done has given women power, but in many cases, none of the responsibility.


Can you explain this?..."What modern feminisms has done has given women power, but in many cases, none of the responsibility."

I don't understand how that is possible.


----------



## Trenton

Kobo said:


> If you can't see the downward trend based on that link then you really do need a man to lead you.


If you really can't find statistics to back up the things you say, you really do need to stop saying them.


----------



## Mom6547

Kobo said:


> I actually have nothing to be resentful for. Never divorced, married 11+ years, beautiful wife, 2 beautiful children, sex multiple times a week, BJs to orgasm, no major issues, and a wife that isn't so insecure that she needs to yell at every turn how strong willed and independent she is.


Actually this is intended to be a discussion about marriage that was brought about by someone ELSE (male incidentally) commenting on these descriptors being used in a dating ad. I have referred to myself by those terms as a clarification of where I come from. I am not sure I feel the need to yell at every turn. Dh knows who I am!


----------



## Kobo

Trenton said:


> If you really can't find statistics to back up the things you say, you really do need to stop saying them.


50% of marriages will fail under the NWO. Sorry it hurts. Just make sure you keep that friends list under control


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> I knew you'd find the humor in that response.


Indeed - I find delicious irony in the protesting you do that attempts to deny other women the chance at a relationship like the one you have.


----------



## Mom6547

Kobo said:


> The divorce rates today are the result of the new world. Unless close to 50% of marriages in the old world were abusive then I would believe the old school marriage was a stronger union.


I think you linked to US divorce rate? I will go back and check. Remaining married under duress is not a "stronger union". That marriage was a social force that caused many a dysfunctional family to remain together is hardly in dispute, I think. Or is this remark intended to dispute it?


----------



## Kobo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Actually this is intended to be a discussion about marriage that was brought about by someone ELSE (male incidentally) commenting on these descriptors being used in a dating ad. I have referred to myself by those terms as a clarification of where I come from. I am not sure I feel the need to yell at every turn. Dh knows who I am!


Yet there are about 3 threads where it is being shouted from the roof tops.


----------



## Kobo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I think you linked to US divorce rate? I will go back and check. Remaining married under duress is not a "stronger union". That marriage was a social force that caused many a dysfunctional family to remain together is hardly in dispute, I think. Or is this remark intended to dispute it?


Yes, U.S. 

With your statement the reader is left to assume that a majority or at least a large number of relationships were dysfunctional in the old world.


----------



## Mom6547

Kobo said:


> Yes, U.S.
> 
> With your statement the reader is left to assume that a majority or at least a large number of relationships were dysfunctional in the old world.


No. The reader who read my posts would not come to that conclusion at all. If s/he actually read the posts. S/he would come to the conclusions that I find your repeating that statistic as not adequate to support the notion that the former social marital norms are superior to the current marital norms.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> Indeed - I find delicious irony in the protesting you do that attempts to deny other women the chance at a relationship like the one you have.


The men/women dichotomy that you support believes that women will be happy as a side effect of the man's happiness and that women aren't capable of understanding what makes them happy. 

I do disagree.


----------



## Kobo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> No. The reader who read my posts would not come to that conclusion at all. If s/he actually read the posts. S/he would come to the conclusions that I find your repeating that statistic as not adequate to support the notion that the former social marital norms are superior to the current marital norms.



I only repeat that statistic at you and your sistren Trenton's questioning. Your response to the climbing divorce rate since the New rules came into place is to talk about abusive, dysfunctional relationships of the old world. The person reading will assume you are attributing the meteoric rise in divorce to women not standing for being in a abusive, dysfunctional relationship.


----------



## Mom6547

Kobo said:


> I only repeat that statistic at you and your sistren Trenton's questioning.


I am not questioning you. I agree with your statistic. Though Trenton and I do sometimes agree, I am not Trenton.



> Your response to the climbing divorce rate since the New rules came into place is to talk about abusive, dysfunctional relationships of the old world. The person reading will assume you are attributing the meteoric rise in divorce to women not standing for being in a abusive, dysfunctional relationship.


Well I would not call it meteoric since I don't know what the divorce rates were before. I will state what I mean as clearly as I can. The divorce rate alone does not support the superiority of the former social marital norm. While there are many problems with the current norm, I think that moving forward to solve them is better than looking to move backward to a norm that was rife with problems of its own.


----------



## Trenton

First of all, Kobo, you cited statistics you can't back up and then passed off the rising divorce rate statistics that we all recognize as a smokescreen to the fact that you don't really have stats to backup your views.

Secondly, I don't believe everyone going through a divorce that is a woman has been abused. I think the rising divorce rate is because women have more choices and if choosing between oppression by man and opportunities in life, many will choose opportunity. 

I recently posted stats from Taiwan where the divorce rate has risen to 30% over the last 10 years. The reason cited in the article was that women have been awarded more opportunity and equality and many are choosing to step away from relationships where the man was abusing them. Not physically or sexually abusing them necessarily, rather passive abuse such as not being honorable men and cheating on their wives regularly or not allowing the woman to have a say in the relationship. 

Granted, in marriages today in the U.S. we know that both men and women cheat almost equally (even if for different reasons). So obviously, when you break apart a marriage that is based upon gender and you create equality, there are negatives that will happen. It has to re-balance itself out. Women and men need to adjust and re-define what their priorities are. It will happen but it will take time. It's possible marriage will become an outdated idea as well. I don't know. I do know that the happiest relationship for me comes from being with my husband.


----------



## Catherine602

Deejo said:


> Visited the New World.
> 
> You can have it.
> I'll take nice ass, and willingness to follow thank you very much. You want to believe that makes me a Neanderthal or somehow weak and fearful? That is your prerogative, but you'd be equally delusional.


A Neanderthal, no, why on earth would I think that, they are extinct or will be in a generation. I have a question though - when you say " you will take nice ass and a willingness to follow" sounds like you are picking female body parts from all of the women flocking around you showing their goods and waiting to be chosen and told how to service you. Where do you find women egar for such am arrangement? I am certain that every man on the planet would like to know your secret to getting easy ass wiling to worship your manhood. You may be talking about prostitutes or porn fantasy, i am not sure. But you sholud not be so angry you are living the male Nirvana.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pandakiss

who is this "new world" who is "old world" ???
if your parents generation is old world, then you are "new world" 

then wh am I?? to me you are "old world", and im new school.
i dont under half the stuff my mom tells me, and ive come to believe she is wrong, and taking her advise would have me sitting alone.
my grand mother, i wouldnt take it to heart, only under advisement.

my mom is last generation baby boomers, i am new school, her views on marriage are out dated,and exterme feminnist views are non issue battles that have no fight left it them.

just my view.....


----------



## Kobo

Trenton said:


> First of all, Kobo, you cited statistics you can't back up and then passed off the rising divorce rate statistics that we all recognize as a smokescreen to the fact that you don't really have stats to backup your views.
> 
> Secondly, I don't believe everyone going through a divorce that is a woman has been abused. I think the rising divorce rate is because women have more choices and if choosing between oppression by man and opportunities in life, many will choose opportunity.
> 
> I recently posted stats from Taiwan where the divorce rate has risen to 30% over the last 10 years. The reason cited in the article was that women have been awarded more opportunity and equality and many are choosing to step away from relationships where the man was abusing them. Not physically or sexually abusing them necessarily, rather passive abuse such as not being honorable men and cheating on their wives regularly or not allowing the woman to have a say in the relationship.
> 
> Granted, in marriages today in the U.S. we know that both men and women cheat almost equally (even if for different reasons). So obviously, when you break apart a marriage that is based upon gender and you create equality, there are negatives that will happen. It has to re-balance itself out. Women and men need to adjust and re-define what their priorities are. It will happen but it will take time. It's possible marriage will become an outdated idea as well. I don't know. I do know that the happiest relationship for me comes from being with my husband.


The stats are there. Choose to believe them or not. The New World is not as great as you guys are making it to be and the old world is not as bad as you pretend it to be.


----------



## Kobo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I am not questioning you. I agree with your statistic. Though Trenton and I do sometimes agree, I am not Trenton.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I would not call it meteoric since I don't know what the divorce rates were before. I will state what I mean as clearly as I can. The divorce rate alone does not support the superiority of the former social marital norm. While there are many problems with the current norm, I think that moving forward to solve them is better than looking to move backward to a norm that was rife with problems of its own.


The divorce number's are what we have. They're moving in a negative direction as the new world relationships take root. It is what it is. To counter that argument if I was in support of the new world I would compare the number of abusive marriages between the old and new world. Other than that we have the divorce rates and trenton's college degree proclamation.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I'm going to be real honest here. The feverish level of men vs. women on this site has racheted up over the last couple of weeks. For me, if I post anything now, it is responded to as an attack, rather than a discussion between adults.
I think I am going to take a step back from the website for a while. I have no idea what has altered the dynamic of this website but it is not the same as when I joined.
There also seems to be no shortage of really really bitter people who lump all "sexes" into a group and no shortage of trolls who feed on that.


----------



## sisters359

I do not find any of the male insistence that the "old way" was better to be threatening at all. In history, every single instance where a biology was used to justify one group's dominance has been proven wrong, by science and historical change.

When nobles claimed that God chose them and so their bloodline was superior, they oppressed others until all the others stood up for themselves and said they would not tolerate it any more. Did nobles lament the changing order and argue that it was "unnatural?" Of course they did. Did it matter? Nope. The leadership of monarchs and aristocrats has been rejected in favor of democracy.

European imperialists argued that they were superior to native peoples who were in need of "guidance." Men like Gandhi stood up to them and refused to accept it. He (and many others like him in the movement for Indian nationalism) proved--by being an Indian of incredible intellect and moral courage--that they were wrong to assume that Europeans were "naturally" superior. 

American slave owners argued that Africans/African-Americans were racially inferior and in need of white guidance. Read "Defense of slavery as a positive Good." It's frankly rather horrifying to realize people thought this way. 

Now, science has developed to the point where the concept of "race" has been shown to have no biological validity. In other words, skin color does not determine any given set of biological markers. People, regardless of skin color, have the same average intelligence, for example. Pick any characteristic you want and you will find it occurs pretty equally throughout humans regardless of skin color. The same applies to the much older concept of race--the French or English, for example, at one time would have referred to anyone NOT French or English as being of a different "race." 

So, the insistence that men are biologically more suited to lead is following a similar path. Of course some men don't like it. It disturbs their view of a proper world order. History is pretty clear on the subject, however: when individuals--through their actions--prove that they are neither inferior nor in need of being led, reason prevails: the biological "rationale" falls apart. 

Human society is very new to all of these changes, speaking historically. Biology-based notions of class superiority began to fall in Western society in the 19th century. Race-based notions of superiorty began to fall in the 20th century. Sex-based notions of superiority also began to be challenged in the 20th century. These things take time because it is very hard for individuals to see beyond their socialization. But, as political history--and the eradication of political power based on blood line demonstrates, they do change.


----------



## JMak00

Have we too quickly accepted the premise of old world/new world dichotomy? It's interesting that the discussion quickly settled on what old world was (all man no woman) and what new world is (diminished man empowered woman). I don't buy it.

It appears that the discussion is relying on a gross stereotype of male behavior in old world marriages and ignores, fully, the cultural roles that men and women have possessed and the origins of those roles. 

But, living with the established order in this thread for the moment...I'll take old world. Less confusion. New world women have new world perspectives, such as, feminist-inspired nonsense that being a stay-at-home mom is treasonous behavior for a woman or it's cliched claptrap about social justice. 

Accepting this false dichotomy in marriage norms leads to irrational discourse as we have seen here...and it seems to be a tool for some to rant about people they otherwise cannot bring themselves to criticize more directly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kobo

JMak00 said:


> Have we too quickly accepted the premise of old world/new world dichotomy? It's interesting that the discussion quickly settled on what old world was (all man no woman) and what new world is (diminished man empowered woman). I don't buy it.
> 
> It appears that the discussion is relying on a gross stereotype of male behavior in old world marriages and ignores, fully, the cultural roles that men and women have possessed and the origins of those roles.
> 
> But, living with the established order in this thread for the moment...I'll take old world. Less confusion. New world women have new world perspectives, such as, feminist-inspired nonsense that being a stay-at-home mom is treasonous behavior for a woman or it's cliched claptrap about social justice.
> 
> Accepting this false dichotomy in marriage norms leads to irrational discourse as we have seen here...and it seems to be a tool for some to rant about people they otherwise cannot bring themselves to criticize more directly.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


S**t just got real... :smthumbup:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Kobo said:


> S**t just got real... :smthumbup:


Yeah, real dumb.


----------



## JMak00

I love how easily folks validate their arguments by simply attributing thoughts to others. For example, "Of course some men don't like it. It disturbs their view of a proper world order. History is pretty clear on the subject, however: when individuals--through their actions--prove that they are neither inferior nor in need of being led, reason prevails: the biological "rationale" falls apart." What?

Who are these men? Where are they? Shall they remain nameless and we'll know them when we see them?

History is not clear on this subject of roles in marriage. That poster's mind is clearly made up, though. Unnamed men treat marriage in "x" way, therefore, that's bad, that's old school. The contemporary marriage (which is what, again?) is the way to go and to validate that, I'll just point at unnamed men and exclaim, "See?" and I will have pwned you. I don't see the reason and logic there, only a crude stareotype.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

Brennan comes out of the booth with some real verbal skeelz...

It's now dumb to question the validity of an argument's premise?? Seriously?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kobo

Brennan said:


> Yeah, real dumb.


Good one!


----------



## MEM2020

What fascinates me are the similarities of the many stories by spouses (mostly but not all women) who married someone they simply were never that attracted to but who had other core qualities they wanted: good provider, good parenting mindset, kind, generous, good friend

Those stories are very similar in that:
1. generally they are far more beneficial to the LD spouse than the HD spouse. 
2. the HD spouse doesn't understand "what" is happening largely because:
- it happens gradually
- the LD spouse is flat out deceitful. They are careful to conceal the "real" issue for fear of jeopardizing the relationship 

The patterns the HD partners describe are eerily similar. The basic flavor is the more "committed" they became the less desire/sex their partner had with them. In fact looking back they see it pretty clearly:
- after they get engaged it decreases
- after they marry - decreases further
- after the first child - obviously in "some" cases hormones and fatigue do play a role 
- after the last child - same thing 

I like to think I have a balanced view of this. The LD partner is often not inherently deceitful, their deceit is largely a matter of self preservation. And often they don't truly "understand" why their HD partner is:
- too stupid to figure it out and
- so stubbornly tenacious/needy sexually

I do think the biggest disservice done on this type "board" is the widespread practice of blaming the victim. While it is true that some marriages are broken outside the bedroom and that is the cause of the sexual problems, just as often they were sexually broken to start and the LD partner simply concealed that fact in order to achieve their personal goals. 

In those cases the marriage is ONLY broken in the bedroom and likely the only way to reignite passion is to destabilize the relationship. While sometimes effective, this requires more skill than most people have and often results in an affair/divorce. 





Catherine602 said:


> Too right. Men are having a much harder time these days in relationships and they express a rage and misogeny that I never knew existed. I read some of the post by unhappily married or divorced men and it is full of venom at woman in general not jut their wives. I wonder what happens to them when they try to form new relationships do they suddenly like women?
> 
> It's a very difficult time in American society now, not the lest of which is the effect of social changes in the status of women and the easy availability of the fantasy of porn. Why porn - because at a time when male domination is decreasing, porn availability is increasing. Porn fuels the fantasy of complete subjugation of women as objects to service men. What a contrast, boys are growing into manhood with their sexuality and view of women shaped by porn. When faced with the reality, it is no wonder that the rage and hostility is so prevalent. Feminism is a curse woman who donot prostrate themselves in the service of the male ego are man batters and male bashers. It will take a generation or two for things to settle out.
> 
> . There was a thread on this forum about advice to their sons about marriage and women by older men.. It was really astonishing to read all the bitterness, anger, sense of entitlement, rage at women was their. The attitude towards the sexual freedom women enjoy was desturbing and sex seems to have been at the center of the oler mans concerns. The thing is these men can not control how their sons interact with women, the greater society does that and society has changed and their is no going back.
> 
> Central to all dealings between men and women is who controls the access to sex - the man or woman. Men have traditionally been in control, and in many parts of the world are still. They have the greater need for it in general so they want the control. When women control access men feel controlled because they need to "jump through hoops" to get it. By that I guess they mean they need to be more cognizant of the needs of women in order to sustain a relationship.
> 
> Up until lately the needs of women had very little impact on sex in a relationship - he had male type sex got releif and his wife adapted to his male type approach wheather she was happy or not in exchange for domestic bliss. Women don't feel that way now,.- a women growing up today knows she can also enjoy sex as much as a man, if she has a lover who knows, she has come to expect that the dynamics in the relatioship should be satisfactory to both and she has options that economic independence has opened. This is unprecedented in history and so we are charting new waters and discovering and adapting as we go along.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Kobo said:


> Good one!


At the risk of sounding combative, I wasn't saying this subject matter was "real dumb" I was saying the obvious misogyny was. This wistful harkening back to the good old days where women weren't independent and had to rely on a man, well, it's just about as dumb as harkening back to the good old days when segregation was the norm. Neither one of those two groups had any options.


----------



## Deejo

Catherine602 said:


> I have a question though - when you say " you will take nice ass and a willingness to follow" sounds like you are picking female body parts from all of the women flocking around you showing their goods and waiting to be chosen and told how to service you. Where do you find women egar for such am arrangement? I am certain that every man on the planet would like to know your secret to getting easy ass wiling to worship your manhood. You may be talking about prostitutes or porn fantasy, i am not sure. But you sholud not be so angry you are living the male Nirvana.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


To answer your first question, two words:

Scrotal Implants. I got size DD silicone testicles. Chicks notice me ... especially when I wear bike pants. 











I'm not looking for easy ass. I'm looking for nice ass. Just one. It's a pre-requisite if you wanna get with this.

I'm still not angry. I still don't have an agenda against women.

This isn't even discourse any more. It's silliness. I treat it as such.


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> To answer your first question, two words:
> 
> Scrotal Implants. I got size DD silicone testicles. Chicks notice me ... especially when I wear bike pants.
> 
> I'm not looking for easy ass. I'm looking for nice ass. Just one. It's a pre-requisite if you wanna get with this.
> 
> I'm still not angry. I still don't have an agenda against women.
> 
> This isn't even discourse any more. It's silliness. I treat is as such.


On the implants...

Care to share the name of your doctor?

Has anyone figured it out?

Do they look real?

How's the sensitivity angle?


----------



## JMak00

Obvious misogyny? Who is displaying such obvious behavior?

Who is harkening back to the good old days of the gross stereotype presented by some posters here?

Lots of uninformed assumptions and projection going on here.

BTW, when were those good ole days anyway? The 1950s? 1800s? Victorian Age? LOL!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Conrad

MEM11363 said:


> What fascinates me are the similarities of the many stories by spouses (mostly but not all women) who married someone they simply were never that attracted to but who had other core qualities they wanted: good provider, good parenting mindset, kind, generous, good friend
> 
> Those stories are very similar in that:
> 1. generally they are far more beneficial to the LD spouse than the HD spouse.
> 2. the HD spouse doesn't understand "what" is happening largely because:
> - it happens gradually
> - the LD spouse is flat out deceitful. They are careful to conceal the "real" issue for fear of jeopardizing the relationship
> 
> The patterns the HD partners describe are eerily similar. The basic flavor is the more "committed" they became the less desire/sex their partner had with them. In fact looking back they see it pretty clearly:
> - after they get engaged it decreases
> - after they marry - decreases further
> - after the first child - obviously in "some" cases hormones and fatigue do play a role
> - after the last child - same thing
> 
> I like to think I have a balanced view of this. The LD partner is often not inherently deceitful, their deceit is largely a matter of self preservation. And often they don't truly "understand" why their HD partner is:
> - too stupid to figure it out and
> - so stubbornly tenacious/needy sexually
> 
> I do think the biggest disservice done on this type "board" is the widespread practice of blaming the victim. While it is true that some marriages are broken outside the bedroom and that is the cause of the sexual problems, just as often they were sexually broken to start and the LD partner simply concealed that fact in order to achieve their personal goals.
> 
> In those cases the marriage is ONLY broken in the bedroom and likely the only way to reignite passion is to destabilize the relationship. While sometimes effective, this requires more skill than most people have and often results in an affair/divorce.


This actually sent a chill down my spine.

The whole "man-up" thing really won't accomplish much if there was little/no attraction TO BEGIN WITH.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

JMak00 said:


> Brennan comes out of the booth with some real verbal skeelz...
> 
> It's now dumb to question the validity of an argument's premise?? Seriously?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No, it's dumb to defend the low divorce rate in the "old world" as some sort of a model of a healthy, happy, marriage.
Divorce was rarely an option because women didn't have anywhere to go. They would be shunned by family and working and providing as a single mother was almost unheard of back then. Using the low divorce rate as a measuring stick for happy marriages is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

JMak00 said:


> Obvious misogyny? Who is displaying such obvious behavior?
> 
> Who is harkening back to the good old days of the gross stereotype presented by some posters here?
> 
> Lots of uninformed assumptions and projection going on here.
> 
> BTW, when were those good ole days anyway? The 1950s? 1800s? Victorian Age? LOL!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


"Old World" was defined by the third post. There are a few posters here who are most definately suggesting that more problems in marriage occurred when women began to work outside the home. Lot's of justifying their beliefs as well. 

There are also a lot more posts as of late on this website that really are men vs. women themes and not in a good way. As I posted, I am going to take a step back from this website in the New Year. Not sure why this site has changed since I joined but it really has.


----------



## sisters359

JMak00 said:


> I love how easily folks validate their arguments by simply attributing thoughts to others. For example, "Of course some men don't like it. It disturbs their view of a proper world order. History is pretty clear on the subject, however: when individuals--through their actions--prove that they are neither inferior nor in need of being led, reason prevails: the biological "rationale" falls apart." What?
> 
> Who are these men? Where are they? Shall they remain nameless and we'll know them when we see them?


Maybe you are relatively new here, but there are men here, on this site, who consistently maintain that it is "natural" for men to lead and "natural" for women to submit. I was using a bit of short-hand by not naming them, yet again. BTDT. They know who they are, and most of us in this thread do, too. 

Let's be very clear: I am not creating a dichotomy. I have always been responding directly to the men on this site who insist on a biological basis for male dominance/female submission.


----------



## Deejo

Can we at least agree that regardless of whether you buy into this old world or new world marriage bullsh!t, that most marriages FAIL. Regardless of whether or not you actually divorce or stay married.

I tried a 'balanced' role neutral marriage. Didn't work. Have absolutely no interest in trying another, or partnering with someone for whom such is important.

There are people here that ARE successfully and happily married. Some are better at conveying how and why that is than others.

I like seeing what works and doesn't work for others.

That's _STILL_ why I'm here.


----------



## JMak00

Brennan, that was not at all clear from your post where you quoted someone who responded to my comments.

Using the divorce rate for anything other than what it is is useless, yet it doesn't stop certain folks from using it argue that the institution of marriage is hopelessly broken so why not permit gay marriage, polygamy, etc. 

Perhaps the poster who appealed to the stat wasn't appealing to what others have defined as old world? I think how others have defined is a gross misrepresentation and doesn't accurately represent marriage in any time period. Given that I'd surely use and would be reasonable to cite the divorce rate trend to argue that contemporary marriage norms have been harmed and that the divorce rate illustrates this. Whether it is no-fault divorce laws, government welfare programs, weakening marriage via gay marriage, abortion...divorce is easier, divorce is no longer an unattractive option, etc.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

sisters359 said:


> Maybe you are relatively new here, but there are men here, on this site, who consistently maintain that it is "natural" for men to lead and "natural" for women to submit. I was using a bit of short-hand by not naming them, yet again. BTDT. They know who they are, and most of us in this thread do, too.
> 
> Let's be very clear: I am not creating a dichotomy. I have always been responding directly to the men on this site who insist on a biological basis for male dominance/female submission.


When I speak about this I am also referencing my frustration with the same. I know it is a flaw of mine that I can't see past it but I find I have to read it so often and it does bother me. I feel a need to chime in on the opposing side. It's not that I am firm in my beliefs on this issue, it's that I am fully frustrated by the acceptance on this site of such nonsense as a gospel for men.


----------



## sisters359

Hey, Deejo, can I ask why you reject the style of marriage vs. attributing the fail of your marriage to the personalities involved? I mean, maybe she really was just a crazy b*tch. (I mean that, seriously.) At first glance, it seems like you might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater (and where the heck did that expression originate?) 



> Can we at least agree that regardless of whether you buy into this old world or new world marriage bullsh!t, that most marriages FAIL. Regardless of whether or not you actually divorce or stay married.


Great point.


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> Can we at least agree that regardless of whether you buy into this old world or new world marriage bullsh!t, that most marriages FAIL. Regardless of whether or not you actually divorce or stay married.
> 
> I tried a 'balanced' role neutral marriage. Didn't work. Have absolutely no interest in trying another, or partnering with someone for whom such is important.
> 
> There are people here that ARE successfully and happily married. Some are better at conveying how and why that is than others.
> 
> I like seeing what works and doesn't work for others.
> 
> That's _STILL_ why I'm here.


Are you going to tell me about the implants - or not?


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> Can we at least agree that regardless of whether you buy into this old world or new world marriage bullsh!t, that most marriages FAIL. Regardless of whether or not you actually divorce or stay married.
> 
> I tried a 'balanced' role neutral marriage. Didn't work. Have absolutely no interest in trying another, or partnering with someone for whom such is important.
> 
> There are people here that ARE successfully and happily married. Some are better at conveying how and why that is than others.
> 
> I like seeing what works and doesn't work for others.
> 
> That's _STILL_ why I'm here.


You are not open to the possibility that a balance neutral marriage would work (as you stated above) so anyone with an opposing view has lost before they begin. How can I start to explain when there is this opposition that will automatically and on repeat discard everything I say, tell me I'm in a n.u.t.s marriage but incapable of recognizing it or dismiss me based upon qualities they find less than admirable in a woman?


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> Have we too quickly accepted the premise of old world/new world dichotomy? It's interesting that the discussion quickly settled on what old world was (all man no woman) and what new world is (diminished man empowered woman). I don't buy it.
> 
> It appears that the discussion is relying on a gross stereotype of male behavior in old world marriages and ignores, fully, the cultural roles that men and women have possessed and the origins of those roles.
> 
> But, living with the established order in this thread for the moment...I'll take old world. Less confusion. New world women have new world perspectives, such as, feminist-inspired nonsense that being a stay-at-home mom is treasonous behavior for a woman or it's cliched claptrap about social justice.


So what does that mean? You know nothing about feminism?


----------



## JMak00

Biological, cultural, religious, whatever. The dichotomy being painted here is useless. It and the discussion around it ignore the origins of marriage roles. 

Additionally, it's not a valid argument top say that well other biological explanations for x human behavior has been disproven or otherwise demonstrated to be false that the men lead women follow behavior is also false. It's simply not an argument.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

sisters359 said:


> Maybe you are relatively new here, but there are men here, on this site, who consistently maintain that it is "natural" for men to lead and "natural" for women to submit. I was using a bit of short-hand by not naming them, yet again. BTDT. They know who they are, and most of us in this thread do, too.
> 
> Let's be very clear: I am not creating a dichotomy. I have always been responding directly to the men on this site who insist on a biological basis for male dominance/female submission.


And here we have the reason for the male/female crap. You didn't finish the sentence for those _men_ here.

"It is natural for men to be dominant and women to be submissive *in matters of sex and attraction.*"

Funny how that bit keeps getting left out. It's ok, I know it's an emotional subject for those that feel like this is a turf war, when it was never meant to be - and isn't still. Happy to make the correction.


----------



## JMak00

I know enough about feminism to recognize the corrosive and rotting effect it has on our culture and the institution of marriage. But that's an altogether separate discussion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> You are not open to the possibility that a balance neutral marriage would work (as you stated above) so anyone with an opposing view has lost before they begin. How can I start to explain when there is this opposition that will automatically and on repeat discard everything I say, tell me I'm in a n.u.t.s marriage but incapable of recognizing it or dismiss me based upon qualities they find less than admirable in a woman?


Are you happy? Are you succeeding or failing? Trenton, I don't care what the hell you call it if it works.

I simply do not believe that a marriage that tries to divest itself of the fact that there is a male participant who performs specific and distinct roles, and a female participant who performs specific and distinct roles takes anybody to the Promised Land. It leads to a confusing clusterf*ck.


----------



## Mom6547

Brennan said:


> Neither one of those two groups had any options.


The "options" thing is of the most import. When men say things like well the women weren't mistreated. "I never hit her." I wonder how they would feel if they could not choose to work. If they had no options but to marry some person for their subsistence and do their bidding. If they had no ability to influence their children's upbringing... OPTIONS.


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> And here we have the reason for the male/female crap. You didn't finish the sentence for those _men_ here.
> 
> "It is natural for men to be dominant and women to be submissive *in matters of sex and attraction.*"


Which is not even demonstrably true. And not the entirety of the "men here" are saying, depending on which men.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> You are not open to the possibility that a balance neutral marriage would work (as you stated above) so anyone with an opposing view has lost before they begin. How can I start to explain when there is this opposition that will automatically and on repeat discard everything I say, tell me I'm in a n.u.t.s marriage but incapable of recognizing it or dismiss me based upon qualities they find less than admirable in a woman?


When you submit to your partner because you "respect his opinion on matters of attraction and the opposite sex", you are in a "NUTS" marriage.

End of story.

Quit trying to convince other people not to experience what clearly "could" work for them.


----------



## JMak00

Brennan, a little closed-minded, eh? Can't tolerate people who don't conform to your opinions?

Heterosexual monogamous marriages are a relatively unique relationship in human history. They are unique, they are special, and they have more to do with than simply acknowledging a partnership. Gay marriage supporters usually rely on an appeal to emotion or a gross analogy to civil rights for blacks. Another primary argument is to have those relationships recognized formally.

Whatever the argument, permitting gay "marriage" weakens the established institution of marriage by removing the uniqueness of the relationship: man and woman to procreate and raise children. 

My argument has nothing to do with the private behavior of two people. It has to do with the institution of marriage being forever and irrevocably changed to accomodate a new definition of marriage.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

JMak00 said:


> Brennan, a little closed-minded, eh? Can't tolerate people who don't conform to your opinions?
> 
> Heterosexual monogamous marriages are a relatively unique relationship in human history. They are unique, they are special, and they have more to do with than simply acknowledging a partnership. Gay marriage supporters usually rely on an appeal to emotion or a gross analogy to civil rights for blacks. Another primary argument is to have those relationships recognized formally.
> 
> Whatever the argument, permitting gay "marriage" weakens the established institution of marriage by removing the uniqueness of the relationship: man and woman to procreate and raise children.
> 
> My argument has nothing to do with the private behavior of two people. It has to do with the institution of marriage being forever and irrevocably changed to accomodate a new definition of marriage.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You really have little idea what close minded means. I respect heterosexual relationships AND homosexual relationships. And this makes me close minded how?
Eh, can't win them all. You believe what you believe and will do the same.
Good day to you.


----------



## Deejo

Conrad said:


> Are you going to tell me about the implants - or not?


From a practice, Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.

I got the model with LED lights built in, can set them to flash to music. Again ... huge conversation opener.

They act like an airbag against violent assault to my crotch. They feel very natural (have been told so by those I have offered to cop a feel), and they are still offset so that the right dangles slightly lower than the left.

I love my silli balls.


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> From a practice, Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.
> 
> I got the model with LED lights built in, can set them to flash to music. Again ... huge conversation opener.
> 
> They act like an airbag against violent assault to my crotch. They feel very natural (have been told so by those I have offered to cop a feel), and they are still offset so that the right dangles slightly lower than the left.
> 
> I love my silli balls.


Saline based or silicone?


----------



## Catherine602

Deejo said:


> To answer your first question, two words:
> 
> Scrotal Implants. I got size DD silicone testicles. Chicks notice me ... especially when I wear bike pants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not looking for easy ass. I'm looking for nice ass. Just one. It's a pre-requisite if you wanna get with this.
> 
> I'm still not angry. I still don't have an agenda against women.
> 
> This isn't even discourse any more. It's silliness. I treat it as such.


_Posted via Mobile Device_

You gave me a good laugh. How did you come up with that!!


----------



## BigBadWolf

Conrad said:


> This actually sent a chill down my spine.
> 
> The whole "man-up" thing really won't accomplish much if there was little/no attraction TO BEGIN WITH.


I have prefaced several posts about this exactly, and in PMs with men I try to spell it out as well.

"Man up", so to say, WILL work assuming two things:

1. There are not physical issues preventing sexual performance.

2. There was sexual attraction in the beginning of the relationship.


Although I would not say it won't accomplish much non the less.

For example, a man getting out of a relationship with a woman that was never sexually attracted to him to begin with, and only married him for money or security or for a father to her other children, I would absolutely consider the man exiting such a relationship an accomplishment.

The bonus that, once he is aware and actively demonstrating dominant masculine behaviors, then watching the women coming from the woodwork, is mere icing on that cake.


----------



## JMak00

Brennan, by closed-mindedness I was speaking to your comment that you no longer had anything to discuss with me because I expressed a certain belief or perspective. In other words, you were closing your mind to me because I expressed something at odds with what you believe. 

Not sure how you arrived at me saying or suggesting that you don't respect certain types of people??

How can you be of an open mind when you explicitly won't speak to others when you disagree with them?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> Are you happy? Are you succeeding or failing? Trenton, I don't care what the hell you call it if it works.
> 
> I simply do not believe that a marriage that tries to divest itself of the fact that there is a male participant who performs specific and distinct roles, and a female participant who performs specific and distinct roles takes anybody to the Promised Land. It leads to a confusing clusterf*ck.


Well, I agree with you but now it seems as if you are disagreeing with yourself? I don't believe that male/female should take on specific roles either. I think that each couple has to accept one another and celebrate their strengths, whatever they may be, and work through their weaknesses. This applies both separately as individuals and then collectively in the relationship.


----------



## Conrad

BigBadWolf said:


> I have prefaced several posts about this exactly, and in PMs with men I try to spell it out as well.
> 
> "Man up", so to say, WILL work assuming two things:
> 
> 1. There are not physical issues preventing sexual performance.
> 
> 2. There was sexual attraction in the beginning of the relationship.
> 
> 
> Although I would not say it won't accomplish much non the less.
> 
> For example, a man getting out of a relationship with a woman that was never sexually attracted to him to begin with, and only married him for money or security or for a father to her other children, I would absolutely consider the man exiting such a relationship an accomplishment.
> 
> The bonus that, once he is aware and actively demonstrating dominant masculine behaviors, then watching the women coming from the woodwork, is mere icing on that cake.


Wolf,

Thanks for that.

I should have said, "Won't help save the marriage".

It will still "accomplish" plenty that needs accomplishing.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> Well, I agree with you but now it seems as if you are disagreeing with yourself? I don't believe that male/female should take on specific roles either. I think that each couple has to accept one another and celebrate their strengths, whatever they may be, and work through their weaknesses. This applies both separately as individuals and then collectively in the relationship.


In a functional sense, how is the word "strength" different from the word "role"?


----------



## Trenton

JMak00 said:


> I know enough about feminism to recognize the corrosive and rotting effect it has on our culture and the institution of marriage. But that's an altogether separate discussion.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Let's have it. I'm interested to read your thoughts.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> When you submit to your partner because you "respect his opinion on matters of attraction and the opposite sex", you are in a "NUTS" marriage.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Quit trying to convince other people not to experience what clearly "could" work for them.


OK, you see I'm really unclear how you make this big leap. For me it was a logical decision. He has a Facebook account and he does not friend any past lovers/girlfriends. When he realized I had, he explained that he felt that was wrong and gave me his reasoning, I saw his perspective and felt his request was fair. I had nothing to gain by being friends with past lovers but had something to lose by not treating my husband as well as he was treating me.

Please explain to me, a non-reader of N.U.T.S., how this alone clearly demonstrates that I am in a NUTS relationships? Are you sure I'm not in a TITS relationship?

I would always say being fair and trying to balance out a relationship would be a good choice. Do you want me to bold this?


----------



## Conrad

It was his boundary.

You submitted to it.

How much more clear does it have to be?


----------



## JMak00

Trenton, not interested in having that conversation. Sorry.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> In a functional sense, how is the word "strength" different from the word "role"?


Each individual will bring different experiences/personalities to the relationship, not different roles. For example, I love to sing and music is very important to me. This could be true for a man or a woman. It is a strength of mine and my husband shares it, so we are compatible here, and find joy within this compatibility. It's not role based, it's trait based.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> It was his boundary.
> 
> You submitted to it.
> 
> How much more clear does it have to be?


I submitted only because it made logical sense to me. If he had a boundary I didn't agree with, for whatever reason, I would not submit to it. So submission is relative to the situation, not a given because of the relationship.


----------



## Trenton

JMak00 said:


> Trenton, not interested in having that conversation. Sorry.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No problem.


----------



## MEM2020

*Re: The "new" rules and feminism*

Feminism scorecard:
- Outside the bedroom it is not only a good thing - it is "fair"
- In regard to sexual matters - for the average couple - it is a train wreck: 
a. It kills the passion that 50,000+ GENERATIONS of mating behavior has hardwired into us for certain interaction patterns AND
b. It is staunchly anti-porn 

While there is valid logic to support "b" - the combination of "a"
and "b" produces a woman who is a wholly unsuitable partner for a HD male because:
- "on average" she has a lower drive than he does AND being a modern woman doesn't feel she should do anything she doesn't "want" to do with her body (which is defensible on a purely rational basis) AND
- she finds the idea of her partner looking at porn at least offensive and maybe even totally unacceptable

While these are "individually" supportable positions in sum they equal = a message to their HD partner that equates to "I own you sexually". Not a recipe for a successful marriage. 

If my W had taken a militantly anti-porn stance during periods in our marriage when her drive was temporarily absent - she would be my ex-wife by now. 




Trenton said:


> Let's have it. I'm interested to read your thoughts.


----------



## BigBadWolf

Conrad said:


> When you submit to your partner because you "respect his opinion on matters of attraction and the opposite sex", you are in a "NUTS" marriage.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Quit trying to convince other people not to experience what clearly "could" work for them.



Trenton has clearly stated on this board her husband is a dominant man in the bedroom and she would not want to change that.

However she and I may agree or disagree on any other subject, concerning dominance I do not consider Trenton among those that oppose what works concerning sexual attraction.


----------



## MEM2020

T,
Just curious - who is more "alpha"/"dominant" in non-sexual matters in your house? You or H? 

You can say it is 50-50 and I will believe you - generally though it is rare to find a true 50-50 in any large area (in this case every area that is non-sexual) of a marriage. 





Trenton said:


> No problem.


----------



## JMak00

MEM, I was thinking more about the myths perped on us by the feminism mvmt, e.g., prevalence of male family violence and economic discrimination.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Conrad

BigBadWolf said:


> Trenton has clearly stated on this board her husband is a dominant man in the bedroom and she would not want to change that.
> 
> However she and I may agree or disagree on any other subject, concerning dominance I do not consider Trenton among those that oppose what works concerning sexual attraction.


Thanks Wolf,

Maybe she can now relax when she sees me post something and not somehow conclude it's directed at "her".


----------



## Trenton

MEM11363 said:


> T,
> Just curious - who is more "alpha"/"dominant" in non-sexual matters in your house? You or H?
> 
> You can say it is 50-50 and I will believe you - generally though it is rare to find a true 50-50 in any large area (in this case every area that is non-sexual) of a marriage.


I would say I am more dominant outside of the bedroom 60/40, maybe even as much as 70/30 with him being 100% dominant in the bedroom.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> Thanks Wolf,
> 
> Maybe she can now relax when she sees me post something and not somehow conclude it's directed at "her".


Mmmm it's not that I think they are directed at me, it's that they evoke something within me and so I respond to you.


----------



## Conrad

JMak00 said:


> MEM, I was thinking more about the myths perped on us by the feminism mvmt, e.g., prevalence of male family violence and economic discrimination.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


JMak,

The lies all support an agenda designed to take men down a notch.

One huge example:

They use the term "domestic violence"

This is purposefully designed to make it as bad as possible. What the statistic hides is that live-in partners are responsible for 80% of it. Husbands? Docile.

But, that doesn't serve "the cause".

This kind of garbage hurts them in ways they cannot fathom.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> Mmmm it's not that I think they are directed at me, it's that they evoke something within me and so I respond to you.


You personalize it.

How about backing off?

It's truly boring for people here that actually need some help.


----------



## MEM2020

Jmak,
What time frame are you referring to? I am asking because I believe if you go back even a 100 years female workforce participation in "good" jobs was extremely limited and family violence wasn't illegal if it stopped short of homicide. 

Since the average male is bigger/stronger than his mate, and since there was no legal consequence I imagine a lot of men resorted to violence. I won't try to quantify that since it doesn't matter. The good news is that spousal abuse is illegal and the laws are enforced. And that stalking is illegal - and those laws are enforced. 

The downside to this is the many stories we read where the STBXW goes into court and claims she doesn't feel "safe" and the courts err on the side of safety and banish the man from the house. While I grasp the better to be safe than sorry, I think this type accusation is often used purely as a tactic against men who are no physical threat to anyone. 




JMak00 said:


> MEM, I was thinking more about the myths perped on us by the feminism mvmt, e.g., prevalence of male family violence and economic discrimination.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

*Re: The "new" rules and feminism*



MEM11363 said:


> Feminism scorecard:
> - Outside the bedroom it is not only a good thing - it is "fair"
> - In regard to sexual matters - for the average couple - it is a train wreck:
> a. It kills the passion that 50,000+ GENERATIONS of mating behavior has hardwired into us for certain interaction patterns AND
> b. It is staunchly anti-porn
> 
> While there is valid logic to support "b" - the combination of "a"
> and "b" produces a woman who is a wholly unsuitable partner for a HD male because:
> - "on average" she has a lower drive than he does AND being a modern woman doesn't feel she should do anything she doesn't "want" to do with her body (which is defensible on a purely rational basis) AND
> - she finds the idea of her partner looking at porn at least offensive and maybe even totally unacceptable
> 
> While these are "individually" supportable positions in sum they equal = a message to their HD partner that equates to "I own you sexually". Not a recipe for a successful marriage.
> 
> If my W had taken a militantly anti-porn stance during periods in our marriage when her drive was temporarily absent - she would be my ex-wife by now.


What if your wife was never sexually absent? Would her dislike for porn still have lead to a most likely divorce?

I do think that feminism like most ism's have flaws but that's what I keep trying to say. We have to come to accept that we are individuals. Women do deserve equal rights but I think to expect women to be the same as men when we are obviously different is unreasonable. 

Bob, at one point, was explaining that a woman in his country could receive a job based upon their sex alone even if they are not the most qualified. I would never advocate for this, but at the same time, I would advocate for equal pay for equal work and that is still not in place nor has it ever been. We see similar disparities when it comes to any minority. I am of the thinking that one should be outraged at any injustice rather than focus on only injustices that apply to that which they can relate to.


----------



## MEM2020

We are about the same. 




Trenton said:


> I would say I am more dominant outside of the bedroom 60/40, maybe even as much as 70/30 with him being 100% dominant in the bedroom.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> You personalize it.
> 
> How about backing off?
> 
> It's truly boring for people here that actually need some help.


How can you speak for people here? Is there some collective group that is petitioning for me to stop typing that I haven't been made aware of? Shouldn't you speak for yourself alone? You do have a choice as to whether or not you would like to respond to any post I make.


----------



## Conrad

Like pissing up a rope.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> Like pissing up a rope.


Is this directed at me Conrad or someone else or just a comment of life in general for you? :rofl:


----------



## sisters359

> Additionally, it's not a valid argument top say that well other biological explanations for x human behavior has been disproven or otherwise demonstrated to be false that the men lead women follow behavior is also false. It's simply not an argument.


The historical pattern is pretty clear, and at least I have evidence. If genetic research proved a biological basis, or a very different historical pattern emerges, I'm "wrong." I can only go with what I know right now and draw conclusions based on A. who I am and what works for me; and B. my current knowledge. 

And Deejo, those three words don't make much difference, in my opinion, for two reasons: 1. the descriptions of dominance are not about dominance only in the bedroom; the discussions of dominance refer to treating a wife at all times as though she is NOT your equal but is, in fact, a less mature, less adult human, and spanking your wife for talking back to you and otherwise disciplining her for asserting her own judgment against yours; and 2. those behaviors from a man do not make him more sexually attractive to ME, a woman (I know, you are shocked). Other women have said the same--such behaviors would make a man LESS sexually attractive.

Now, do I like it when a man is sexually aggressive in the bedroom? You bet! Does it make me submissive (in or out of the bedroom)? Gosh, no! 

I know that some of the men on this site have a different take on "dominance" that sounds a lot like confidence to me. I also know that some find it benefits their relationship to be sexually "aggressive" (not in a forceful way, but by treating their wife as an *extremely* desirable sex object and triggering a sexual response that way. Confidence and treating your wife as a sex object *for purposes of initiating sex/maintaining the sexual relationship* just sound like common sense to me. Treating your wife like a daughter who needs your guidance and leadership and expecting it will make her happier is not common sense, nor is treating her solely like a sex object at all times. 

Goodness, if women had been happy in marriages the way they were, a women's movement wouldn't have emerged in the first place. Let's not forget that it was the married women of the 1950s who really inspired modern feminism.


----------



## MEM2020

*Re: The "new" rules and feminism*

Not only did she always have "right of first refusal" there was never a time when I preferred porn to real sex. 

She would have been on rock solid ground saying "I will not tolerate porn and I also will make sure you are always satisfied"

Note: I did not "rub it in" regarding the porn. It was just a low key thing of "this is the overflow valve". She understood that. And I was discrete - but hey the monthly credit card statement didn't lie.







Trenton said:


> What if your wife was never sexually absent? Would her dislike for porn still have lead to a most likely divorce?
> 
> I do think that feminism like most ism's have flaws but that's what I keep trying to say. We have to come to accept that we are individuals. Women do deserve equal rights but I think to expect women to be the same as men when we are obviously different is unreasonable.
> 
> Bob, at one point, was explaining that a woman in his country could receive a job based upon their sex alone even if they are not the most qualified. I would never advocate for this, but at the same time, I would advocate for equal pay for equal work and that is still not in place nor has it ever been. We see similar disparities when it comes to any minority. I am of the thinking that one should be outraged at any injustice rather than focus on only injustices that apply to that which they can relate to.


----------



## JMak00

MEM, who here is arguing against equal rights for women?

Also, the equal pay equal work myth is just that, a myth. There are legitimate reasons for pay disparities even if feminists and their liberal sympathizers want to believe otherwise. Women make rational decisions that affect the pay decisions their employers make, e.g., earning a degree, raising a family, and then going to work which necessarily means she earns less than the man who worked the entire time. Women also make different career choices - longshoreman, oil rig workers, miners...of course then there will be a disparity in overall pay. 

Unfortunately, though, our American society has succesfully transformed disparity into discrimination.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

*Re: The "new" rules and feminism*



MEM11363 said:


> Not only did she always have "right of first refusal" there was never a time when I preferred porn to real sex.
> 
> She would have been on rock solid ground saying "I will not tolerate porn and I also will make sure you are always satisfied"
> 
> Note: I did not "rub it in" regarding the porn. It was just a low key thing of "this is the overflow valve". She understood that. And I was discrete - but hey the monthly credit card statement didn't lie.


Well, there you go. I have never been sexually absent and have always been more than happy to satisfy him, even through pregnancy, childbirth or disease. I hope this never changes. I dislike porn for reasons outside of the temporary sexual fulfillment they provide. My husband has watched it in the past but after we talked about it in depth and he realized how important it was to me, he stopped. Now whether or not he sneaks it on the down low, I don't know. If he did and I found out I wouldn't be angry but I would reiterate my stance.


----------



## Trenton

JMak00 said:


> MEM, who here is arguing against equal rights for women?
> 
> Also, the equal pay equal work myth is just that, a myth. There are legitimate reasons for pay disparities even if feminists and their liberal sympathizers want to believe otherwise. Women make rational decisions that affect the pay decisions their employers make, e.g., earning a degree, raising a family, and then going to work which necessarily means she earns less than the man who worked the entire time. Women also make different career choices - longshoreman, oil rig workers, miners...of course then there will be a disparity in overall pay.
> 
> Unfortunately, though, our American society has succesfully transformed disparity into discrimination.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I thought you didn't want to discuss this? Is it that you didn't want to discuss it with someone you could foresee as disagreeing with you?

I disagree with everything you say above and I can prove that you are wrong. Time and time again, women who have degrees and equal experience, will be paid less than a man with the same qualifications. If you are suggesting the fact that a woman has children should equal less pay because it will equal more time off and a larger liability then I wonder if you've ever considered equal responsibility.


----------



## Conrad

>>I thought you didn't want to discuss this? Is it that you didn't want to discuss it with someone you could foresee as disagreeing with you?<<

You leave people no recourse other than to simply conclude you like fighting.

You take up arms when there is absolutely no reason for it.

All personal - all the time.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> >>I thought you didn't want to discuss this? Is it that you didn't want to discuss it with someone you could foresee as disagreeing with you?<<
> 
> You leave people no recourse other than to simply conclude you like fighting.
> 
> You take up arms when there is absolutely no reason for it.
> 
> All personal - all the time.


I get that you don't like who you view as me but I don't get why you can't leave me alone. 

Re-read. Mem, is the one who answered what was proposed after I said it was no problem if JMak didn't want to get into it and I responded to Mem. I only questioned JMak because he/she then got into the conversation after Mem responded.

You see, Conrad, you already have your ideas about me fixed and so you will place things on me even if I'm not responsible. It's easy.


----------



## Threetimesalady

Great post...I was a NEW WORLD already 52 years ago...I passed by men who I would never bow too...Not that I was looking for a meal ticket, but that I wanted one that I could both respect and love until my last day on earth....Needless to say, I found him...

I see many of the old world males on forums such as this....Our difference in views are as strong as night and day...I accept and they accept as both of us walk a different line in life....I am a strong woman....Confident in my ability and proud of my accomplishments in life...However, even though I love man and his ability to turn me to mush, I am also aware of the fact that he is not a necessary part of my life as a woman to be kept satisfied....For I, as a woman, would NEVER bow to man the way I saw my Mother have to do it years ago...I would rather replace him with a toy........


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> I get that you don't like who you view as me but I don't get why you can't leave me alone.
> 
> Re-read. Mem, is the one who answered what was proposed after I said it was no problem if JMak didn't want to get into it and I responded to Mem. I only questioned JMak because he/she then got into the conversation after Mem responded.
> 
> You see, Conrad, you already have your ideas about me fixed and so you will place things on me even if I'm not responsible. It's easy.


I want to know why you took it upon yourself to rip into him.

>>I only questioned JMak because he/she then got into the conversation after Mem responded.<<

If you want to discuss things with him, then do it.

No need to self-righteously moralize 24/7.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> I want to know why you took it upon yourself to rip into him.


It wasn't him, it was what he was posting about women in the workforce that I was responding to. It's a difference of opinion. If he has documentation of some kind that backs up what he is saying I'd really like to see it. If it exists I've never found it. If he doesn't want to get into a debate like this, I can respect that.


----------



## Trenton

> No need to self-righteously moralize 24/7.


A flaw of mine. I will admit. I feel strongly and care deeply about things, sometimes I vomit up self-righteous crap that is counter productive.


----------



## Conrad

>>I thought you didn't want to discuss this? Is it that you didn't want to discuss it with someone you could foresee as disagreeing with you?<<

Who wrote this sentence?

How would 99.9% of the people that speak English and inhabit planet earth interpret this remark?

(this is part of that counterproductive stuff you mentioned)


----------



## JMak00

At that moment I wasn't going to provide a anti-feminism narrative. That poster responded to a comment so I replied back. 

Please feel free to prove me wrong... But disparity is not discrimination.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

Trenton, a Jan 2009 report by Consad Research Corp for the Dept of Labor. 

The wage gap that is often referred to is the observed disparity in median wages earned by men and women. The DoL foreward to the report acknowledges how that measure is often misused to advance policy agendas and that the report is intended to I'd the reasons for pay disparity. 

The above-reference report concludes that between 65pct and 76pct of the gap is attributable to varying attributes of men and women, e.g., women work PT more than men; women leave the labor force for child birth, child care, and elder care; and women value family friendly workplace policies that provide extended time off. 

The DoL in it's foreword goes on to explain that the unambiguous conclusion is that differences in compensation are the result of a multitude of facotrs and that the raw wage gap should not be used as a basis to justify corrective action. Further, that the diff in raw wags are almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by male and female workers. 

And we shouldn't ignore how occupational choices affect median wages, again, women are not choosing to work in high-risk occupations. 

The report is titled, "An Analysis of Reasons for Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women". 

Disparity is not discrimination.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sisters359

Mem said



> a. It kills the passion that 50,000+ GENERATIONS of mating behavior has hardwired into us for certain interaction patterns


I have to disagree with this premise. 

For one thing, why was there need for the concept of the "wifely duty" if women were all feeling so passionate? Reproduction does not require female passion. I don't want to make more of this point, but it is one of those things that makes me wonder.

More importantly, feminism has allowed women to enjoy their sexuality more, not less. Perhaps sexual satisfaction in marriage, particularly for men (in the situations you describe), has been reduced, but if women are enjoying their sexuality more--outside of marriage, before marriage, etc., then maybe the amount of "passion" has stayed the same but the dissatisfaction about it has shifted somewhat? 

Also, mating is just that-intercourse btw a male and female member of the species (sex, of course, is a lot more than just mating). All the sociological stuff attached to mating has changed over time and place, while mating has continued. Although people assume marriage is a natural outgrowth of mating--and they assume the specifically Christian concept of marriage is the natural outgrowth of mating--there have been so many other configurations of social organization. It may just be that the Christian concept of family and social organization is on its way out as the dominant model. 

The nuclear family is not very old and isn't even the predominant model in most of the world. Maybe it won't survive social change. I don't know, that is for sure. But I'm pretty sure that feminism has not led to a decline in passion or mating.


----------



## JMak00

Feminism, though, has led to several myths that are culturally destructive, e.g., male family violence and economic discrimination.

And feminism was not simply a sexual awakening, in fact, I don't think that was even a basis for feminism.

The bottom line is that contemporary feminism has corrupted our cultural institutions like marriage and law.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sisters359

Conrad:



> When you submit to your partner because you "respect his opinion on matters of attraction and the opposite sex", you are in a "NUTS" marriage.


And what is it when he submits to hers?


----------



## Threetimesalady

sisters359 said:


> Mem said
> 
> 
> The nuclear family is not very old and isn't even the predominant model in most of the world. Maybe it won't survive social change. I don't know, that is for sure. But I'm pretty sure that feminism has not led to a decline in passion or mating.


IMO, it has led to a woman demanding her rights as a sexual woman in a man's world...No more is it "Wam, Bam, Thank you Ma'm"...It's a new woman...One that knows life and demands an orgasm....She just plain doesn't kiss a*s anymore....That is, unless he kisses her's first....I think the word is the "older cougar!!!"...She is the new woman of the world...She is why I speak of life...My mantra....


----------



## JMak00

Demanding rights as a sexual woman, new woman...maybe I'll just never get it!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

JMak00 said:


> Feminism, though, has led to several myths that are culturally destructive, e.g., male family violence and economic discrimination.
> 
> And feminism was not simply a sexual awakening, in fact, I don't think that was even a basis for feminism.
> 
> The bottom line is that contemporary feminism has corrupted our cultural institutions like marriage and law.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Family violence is not a myth. It is fact, it happens and it goes both ways. Both men and women can be abusive, given the wrong situation. It is deeply offensive to me that you discount it as a myth. As somebody who was on the receiving end of such a "myth", I can tell you you are patently wrong. 

Economic discrimination does exist but I will agree with you that far too many women expect equal pay for not the same level of work. I have posted here in the past that if a woman wants to be a firefighter, more power to her but she better darn well be able to carry 70 lbs of gear and run up 14 flights of stairs like her male counterparts. If she can and does it consistently like her male crew, then she should be paid the same amount. 

Feminism did contribute to a sexual awakening for women. In the past it was "lie there and think of England" but after radical change, it became acceptable for a woman to harness her sexuality and she didn't need to feel ashamed about enjoying sex. The advent of The Pill also made it possible for women to enjoy sex without the constant fear of becoming pregnant. 

Lastly, feminism has corrupted our institutions like marriage and law? How? Because women have rights? You also said the same thing about homosexuality. How would a gay couple wanting to get married be such a threat to marriage? Your marriage? It boggles my mind. :scratchhead:


----------



## JMak00

Brennan, you've misunderstood me, I think. 

I said the myth was male family violence, i.e., that men disproportionately committed family violence and it was a myth perped by feminists based on surveys of women in shelters. I don't deny or discount the existence of family violence, only the feminist myth about male-dominated family violence. 

Feminism had led to a change in laws surrounding marriage - I.e., no fault divorce and abortion, both of which have corrupted our culture. 

Feminism and the Victorian Age, please. 

And gay couples are not a threat to my marriage and I said so already. It ios a threat to the institution of marriage. Re-read what I wrote...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

JMak00 said:


> Brennan, you've misunderstood me, I think.
> 
> I said the myth was male family violence, i.e., that men disproportionately committed family violence and it was a myth perped by feminists based on surveys of women in shelters. I don't deny or discount the existence of family violence, only the feminist myth about male-dominated family violence.
> 
> Feminism had led to a change in laws surrounding marriage - I.e., no fault divorce and abortion, both of which have corrupted our culture.
> 
> Feminism and the Victorian Age, please.
> 
> And gay couples are not a threat to my marriage and I said so already. It ios a threat to the institution of marriage. Re-read what I wrote...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I do believe that more men batter than women and in a melting pot like America, we have many many cultures where this is somewhat "acceptable". Having said that though, it is NOT a one sided issue. Not at all. Sadly, when a man is abused, it is rarely reported. I don't think any violence should occur in a relationship and I took serious issue with you saying male domestic violence is a myth. I can 100% assure you it is not. I have posted about my harrowing and deeply personal experience about this before. 

How has a no fault divorce corrupted our culture? Both parties can leave a marriage now when and if they want to. 

I will not talk about abortion. This website has very strict rules about "political" posts and abortion is very closely linked to politics, right or wrong.


----------



## Mom6547

Brennan said:


> I do believe that more men batter than women and in a melting pot like America, we have many many cultures where this is somewhat "acceptable". Having said that though, it is NOT a one sided issue. Not at all. Sadly, when a man is abused, it is rarely reported.


The motions toward equality have started to change that, thank goodness. Once upon a time, as much as women were trapped by their roles, so too were men.



> I don't think any violence should occur in a relationship and I took serious issue with you saying male domestic violence is a myth. I can 100% assure you it is not. I have posted about my harrowing and deeply personal experience about this before.


Wow. That is an interesting piece of ignorance that I missed. I remember one woman at the battered women's shelter I volunteered at a zillion years ago telling me about how she beat the tar out of her first boyfriend. She sent him to the hospital. Yah it exists.



> How has a no fault divorce corrupted our culture? Both parties can leave a marriage now when and if they want to.


In my view, it has something to do with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think that all change brings good and bad with it. But the desire to go back to old ways is so strong, that being able to throw away the good that change has brought by focusing only on the bad is an easy out.

I notice not ONE person has commented on the men's rights that have proceeded directly from feminism.


----------



## BigBadWolf

JMak00 said:


> Feminism, though, has led to several myths that are culturally destructive, e.g., male family violence and economic discrimination.
> 
> And feminism was not simply a sexual awakening, in fact, I don't think that was even a basis for feminism.
> 
> The bottom line is that contemporary feminism has corrupted our cultural institutions like marriage and law.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Feminism is all over the map as far as what it's proponents claim it is about.

Concerning sexuality, to understand hypergamy is to understand how feminism influences sexual opinions.

This article is good to read concerning the relation:

Alpha Dominance » Hypergamy, the Myth of Female Monogamy and Personal Responsibility in the Age of Feminism


Myself, I reject the notion that it is acceptable for a woman to **** it up when she's young with every "bad boy" that tingles her vagina, then eventually settle for some "nice guy" when her biological clock ticks louder, and the minute she gets bored walk away with a hefty alimony check, and then call this "empowerment".


----------



## Mom6547

BigBadWolf said:


> Feminism is all over the map as far as what it's proponents claim it is about.


THAT is the god's honest truth. I can't argue with you there. 



> Myself, I reject the notion that it is acceptable for a woman to **** it up when she's young with every "bad boy" that tingles her vagina, then eventually settle for some "nice guy" when her biological clock ticks louder, and the minute she gets bored walk away with a hefty alimony check, and then call this "empowerment".


Well I agree with you there too. That is rather nonsensical.


----------



## MEM2020

As the male you need to take responsibility for mate selection and some very honest pre-marital communication. 

Before we married I initiated a few conversations about sex that some women would have reacted very badly to / ended the relationship over. And that would have been sad - but I would have accepted it. My basic theme was:
- sex is a BIG deal to me 
- if you want monogamy you need to make the effort to keep me happy in bed - and I understand that for my part it is my responsibility to make sex as fun for you as possible. In short, I am not ok with being locked into monogamy with a sexually indifferent spouse. As for the monogamy bit - if I am not happy I WILL tell you. I won't just wander off into someone else's arms

My W knew I loved her and wasn't marrying her to continue having sex with her. She grasped the point that I was simply not on board with the idea of a sexually starved/celibate marriage. She also guessed (correctly) that I was by nature monogamous and would not "look" for an excuse to stray. 

One of the reasons our marriage has worked is I not only tolerated, I encouraged her to be open about things that turned her on/off in and out of bed. And I give her a lot of credit for being very candid with me. 

I would not suggest for a moment that this "approach" guarantees success. I do however think that it can help you avoid marrying someone who is playing the "pretend to like sex/pretend to be attracted to you" game. Because THAT person is going to have a highly allergic reaction to a conversation of that type. I also think it gets to the heart of what your potential spouse believes their sexual responsibilities are. And in todays world those range from:
- I have zero responsibility - if I want to we will - if not - we won't

all the way to

- Unless I am ill or truly dead tired from an unusually long day I would not say no

And both of those mindsets can work - with the right partner. 





BigBadWolf said:


> Feminism is all over the map as far as what it's proponents claim it is about.
> 
> Concerning sexuality, to understand hypergamy is to understand how feminism influences sexual opinions.
> 
> This article is good to read concerning the relation:
> 
> Alpha Dominance » Hypergamy, the Myth of Female Monogamy and Personal Responsibility in the Age of Feminism
> 
> 
> Myself, I reject the notion that it is acceptable for a woman to **** it up when she's young with every "bad boy" that tingles her vagina, then eventually settle for some "nice guy" when her biological clock ticks louder, and the minute she gets bored walk away with a hefty alimony check, and then call this "empowerment".


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

BigBadWolf said:


> Feminism is all over the map as far as what it's proponents claim it is about.
> 
> Concerning sexuality, to understand hypergamy is to understand how feminism influences sexual opinions.
> 
> This article is good to read concerning the relation:
> 
> Alpha Dominance » Hypergamy, the Myth of Female Monogamy and Personal Responsibility in the Age of Feminism
> 
> 
> Myself, I reject the notion that it is acceptable for a woman to **** it up when she's young with every "bad boy" that tingles her vagina, then eventually settle for some "nice guy" when her biological clock ticks louder, and the minute she gets bored walk away with a hefty alimony check, and then call this "empowerment".


Very interesting post. As someone who "****ted it up" in her younger years, my brand of feminism is a tad different than what many men here think of feminism. I think women should expect equal pay for equal work done, if done the same. I mentioned about if a woman wants to be a firefighter, well then she should darn well be able to pack on 70 lbs of gear and run up 15 flights of stairs and do this consistently. If she can, she should earn as much as her male counterparts. 
I do not nor have I ever believed that women get a pass in child rearing and that in the case of divorce, the children automatically go to the mother. Never, ever have I thought this. I believe parenting should be a 50% process. My husband is actually the better parent! He should/would NEVER be a weekend father nor should he be forced by the courts to be so.
I do not believe in lifetime alimony. As a feminist, I can provide for myself and take care of my own. That's what equality is all about. I would have serious issues with saddling him for a lifetime hook of payments, which most states are doing away with.
In the state I live in, the maximum alimony you can ever receive is 3 years and it is 20% of actual income, not bonuses or stock options. There is a tremendous disparity in what I earn vs. what he earns. We got pregnant young and he finished college, while I did not. He also got his MBA. A trust fund set up by my Grandfather for my education was used to pay for his graduate school. I have/had no issue with this. It worked out well for us, 17 years later. If we were to divorce however, the short term alimony could help me to reduce my hours and work part time/go back to college and therefore further my career, helping our youngest son. I don't see this as a bad thing and yet certainly not something I would coast on my laurels on. Alimony isn't a lifestyle, at least not to me and never will be. God willing, we will never get to that point but it is comforting to know that my husband totally agrees with me on this and actually said "20% is the very least I can do for you given what you gave up to help me". Granted, we aren't in the middle of a divorce.


----------



## Trenton

Pandakiss said:


> thats the way we are too. im loud mouth know-it-all, and ni have very strong opinoins. but thats outside, we are different people outside in the real world.
> 
> for years i tryed to control, my husband in the bedoom, didnt work out, and we had probs outside the bedroom.
> 
> i stopped trying to control everything, and now the both of us are happy, and look to a brighter future.


Glad you worked it out into something great for both of you. 

I have always been submissive in the bedroom. It was a relief to meet my husband and find a man confident and skilled in that regard. I enjoy it tremendously.


----------



## Catherine602

Wow this topic is red hot. I don't think relationships between men and women are in dire straits. Part of that impression is a media contrivance. In addition, the community on this forum is not representative of American society at large. The positive news is that the people who are in pain now because of circumstances in their relationship will heal and move on never to be heard from again, fortunately . 

Right now I am working on my marriage of 9 years that's why I am here and I hope it will not be much longer. My husband and I married early and we had 4 good years. When we had children that's when the spiral down started. We met at shool and we discussed everything we wanted our relationship. We both agreed that up-keep of the house and child care was a shared responsibility and that we would each have equal time for our individual pursuits in addition to our joint ventures. The balance changed slowly from the time we got married and became severe after the birth of our 1st child. I was the one doing everything in the home. Just like his mother and mine and i made it clear yhat was not the type of marrige i wanted. My husband is a very involved father so that was not the problem. I give it one last chance by reading relationship books and joining forums to learn about men. 

We were able to reconnect because he was willing to read and discuss problems. I gained a better understanding of him as a man and he had a better understanding of me and we both discover why the dynamics of the marriage changed to what we were familiar with even though we did not want that. So I was very angry with him still for the early years that were so difficult for me. He has made amends and understands that it was unfair and he apologized sincerely and followed up with action. I still have not fully forgiven him and I will never forget. It does still come between us sometimes when he does something that leaves me holding the bag. So we are working on it. 

My views are colored by my experience I feel as if my husband did a bait and switch - he seems to have been looking for a housekeeper, baby maker, baby sitter, convenient sex, emotional supporter and an extra salary not a life partner. I think he finds it difficult to change because it effects his basic concept of what a man should do. He is making this difficult change because he almost lost me and I wonder what would have happened if I did not have the leverage to leave. 

Men seem to reduce everything to sex when it comes to women that's how I felt, never realized that many men feel acceptance, love, emotional connection with the one they love through sex. I don't think it is that simple because they ignore problems in a relationship when they are having sex. I have made an effort to understand but I really don't, when i read women write sex is not that important in a relationship, i shutter to think of their poor husband. Woman do not understand, how devastating it is for a man to be rejected by the one they love. This knowledge changed my relationship with my husband - was able to show him that i understood and ask him to understand how i feel. However, my husband only perceived that I was unhappy when I stopped having sex with him prior to that, he rationalized away the problems and glossed over my repeated request. Sex also seems to be a communication device, there is no better way to get a man's attention than withdrawal of sex unfortunately. 

I think both men and women are equally responsible for the current problems, we have made no effort to understand each other and social evolution demands that we do. It is simple minded to blame feminism or women manipulating men through sex. It is much bigger than that. 50% of the human race is free to use the gifts God gave them to advance the human race. All significant leaps in man's ability to manipulate the world around him is followed by conflict. The industrial revolutionand the monied elite; the discovery of the Americas and Native Americans, protection of the rights of laborers and the rober barons.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

Brennan, I typically grant people a degree a good faith on the boards. However, I am a little fussed here. I was pretty clear in the first instance that the feminist myth I was referring to was male family violence. You replied that you thought I was denying/discounting that such violence existed. Ok, I thought, you may have misunderstood me...so I said so and reiterated what I meant. 

Yet, in your next response you, once again, state that I was denying such male violence. This is outrageous. I was referring the feminist-inspired idea that there was an epidemic of male family violence. That doesn't suggest that such violence doesn't exist nor does it suggest that such violence should be minimized. It merely points out that feminists inspired and cultivated a myth that had a family violence as a predominantly male characteristic and relied on surveys of battered women to draw such conclusions and present that as fact in marriages. 

Please read more carefully. This is the second separate instance of you misconstruing what I have posted.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Catherine,
We didn't have the "need to withhold sex to get his attention" interaction pattern. When my W is happy she is truly delightful to be around. When NOT happy she is very much not fun to be around. I imagine I am fairly similar. So stuff got resolved outside the bedroom fairly quickly as the alternative was so very painful in both directions. 

As for feeling taken for granted I will share the "mans" side of this. My W was a stay at home mom for 18+ years. She took over running a small business a bit over 2 years ago. But 6 years ago we had an ever escalating conflict over the fact that all 3 kids were in school - I was working 50-60 hours a week and traveling and she was NOT bothering to be organized enough to help out with a short list of stuff I asked her to do every week or so. 

And we ultimately had a conversation where she asked me to do something that was fair and reasonable. And I told her that I was not even going to discuss it much less do it and that her wishes were no longer a priority for me. I explained that until I felt loved and appreciated OUTSIDE the bedroom I was no longer going to be the accommodating guy she was so familiar with. 

Now I had been escalating this topic for 2 years and getting more frustrated and angry to no effect. Amazingly when I suddenly deprioritized her - which I had never done before - I got the support I had been asking for. It was a bit distressing that we got to that point - but sometimes marriage is hard. 

And as I recall I ignored her in bed for a while after that conversation. That doesn't mean I rejected her, but I totally stopped initiating. This "balance of effort" is not even close to being exclusively a male problem. 




Catherine602 said:


> Wow this topic is red hot. I don't think relationships between men and women are in dire straits. Part of that impression is a media contrivance. In addition, the community on this forum is not representative of American society at large. The positive news is that the people who are in pain now because of circumstances in their relationship will heal and move on never to be heard from again, fortunately .
> 
> Right now I am working on my marriage of 9 years that's why I am here and I hope it will not be much longer. My husband and I married early and we had 4 good years. When we had children that's when the spiral down started. We met at shool and we discussed everything we wanted our relationship. We both agreed that up-keep of the house and child care was a shared responsibility and that we would each have equal time for our individual pursuits in addition to our joint ventures. The balance changed slowly from the time we got married and became severe after the birth of our 1st child. I was the one doing everything in the home. Just like his mother and mine and i made it clear yhat was not the type of marrige i wanted. My husband is a very involved father so that was not the problem. I give it one last chance by reading relationship books and joining forums to learn about men.
> 
> We were able to reconnect because he was willing to read and discuss problems. I gained a better understanding of him as a man and he had a better understanding of me and we both discover why the dynamics of the marriage changed to what we were familiar with even though we did not want that. So I was very angry with him still for the early years that were so difficult for me. He has made amends and understands that it was unfair and he apologized sincerely and followed up with action. I still have not fully forgiven him and I will never forget. It does still come between us sometimes when he does something that leaves me holding the bag. So we are working on it.
> 
> My views are colored by my experience I feel as if my husband did a bait and switch - he seems to have been looking for a housekeeper, baby maker, baby sitter, convenient sex, emotional supporter and an extra salary not a life partner. I think he finds it difficult to change because it effects his basic concept of what a man should do. He is making this difficult change because he almost lost me and I wonder what would have happened if I did not have the leverage to leave.
> 
> Men seem to reduce everything to sex when it comes to women that's how I felt, never realized that many men feel acceptance, love, emotional connection with the one they love through sex. I don't think it is that simple because they ignore problems in a relationship when they are having sex. I have made an effort to understand but I really don't, when i read women write sex is not that important in a relationship, i shutter to think of their poor husband. Woman do not understand, how devastating it is for a man to be rejected by the one they love. This knowledge changed my relationship with my husband - was able to show him that i understood and ask him to understand how i feel. However, my husband only perceived that I was unhappy when I stopped having sex with him prior to that, he rationalized away the problems and glossed over my repeated request. Sex also seems to be a communication device, there is no better way to get a man's attention than withdrawal of sex unfortunately.
> 
> I think both men and women are equally responsible for the current problems, we have made no effort to understand each other and social evolution demands that we do. It is simple minded to blame feminism or women manipulating men through sex. It is much bigger than that. 50% of the human race is free to use the gifts God gave them to advance the human race. All significant leaps in man's ability to manipulate the world around him is followed by conflict. The industrial revolutionand the monied elite; the discovery of the Americas and Native Americans, protection of the rights of laborers and the rober barons.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

JMak00 said:


> Brennan, I typically grant people a degree a good faith on the boards. However, I am a little fussed here. I was pretty clear in the first instance that the feminist myth I was referring to was male family violence. You replied that you thought I was denying/discounting that such violence existed. Ok, I thought, you may have misunderstood me...so I said so and reiterated what I meant.
> 
> Yet, in your next response you, once again, state that I was denying such male violence. This is outrageous. I was referring the feminist-inspired idea that there was an epidemic of male family violence. That doesn't suggest that such violence doesn't exist nor does it suggest that such violence should be minimized. It merely points out that feminists inspired and cultivated a myth that had a family violence as a predominantly male characteristic and relied on surveys of battered women to draw such conclusions and present that as fact in marriages.
> 
> Please read more carefully. This is the second separate instance of you misconstruing what I have posted.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


"Feminism, though, has led to several myths that are culturally destructive, e.g., male family violence and economic discrimination."

Your quote, not mine. Do not instruct me to read more carefully. None of what you posted are "myths". I can attest to that. Also, I didn't "misunderstand" you. I read you just fine.


----------



## Mom6547

Conrad said:


> It was his boundary.
> 
> You submitted to it.
> 
> How much more clear does it have to be?


If I have a boundary and he submits to it, does that make him submissive? Here I thought we were being considerate of each other. All this time I find he is just ***** whipped. Whhhhhhooooaaa.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> I would say I am more dominant outside of the bedroom 60/40, maybe even as much as 70/30 with him being 100% dominant in the bedroom.


I would be curious to know what it means to be dominant in the bedroom. I was going to say my DH is dominant in the bed room. But then I had to rethink. When we are playing rough, bdsm and such, he is more frequently dom though we do switch up from time to time. But the majority of the time we aren't rough. It would be hard to say who is dominant. Or if anyone is dominant.

Neither one of us is dominant in the rest of our marriage. We ask each other before we spend outside the normal budget. We discuss new matters of child rearing when they come up. I DO tend to make travel or entertainment plans without his prior opinion because he generally doesn't voice and opinion.

We each have our roles. I pay the bills and do the budget stuff. The kids and I are responsible for the majority of house work since we are home all day. I am responsible for education, curricular planning... He is responsible for bringing home the bacon. He is responsible for the cars. We share lawn care. Since we live in the boon docks, if we don't care for our lawn, no one knows but us! 

But these are roles, not really decision making things. They have habit based expectation about them. If things deviate from the norm, we discuss them. 

I wonder if dominance is even necessary in a relationship? Obviously it works for some relationships. I don't doubt Deejo when he says it does. But I don't see it as a necessary ingredient in a relationship.


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> Feminism, though, has led to several myths that are culturally destructive, e.g., male family violence and economic discrimination.


What, exactly, are you claiming is mythical about male family violence? That no violence is perpetrated by women against men? 

Incidence is, indeed, quite a bit lower than domestic violence against women, and reporting is low as well. But it takes only a few to make it clear that it does exist. I know two cases personally. 

Some info out of Oregon

Domestic Violence Against Men

Support group, not super reliable source but there it is...

MenWeb-Domestic violence. 835,000 battered men each year, silent too Long...

Mayo clinic, that is a pretty reliable source

Domestic violence against men: Know the signs, seek help - MayoClinic.com






> And feminism was not simply a sexual awakening, in fact, I don't think that was even a basis for feminism.
> 
> The bottom line is that contemporary feminism has corrupted our cultural institutions like marriage and law.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Viva la corruption! Out with the old, in with the new!


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> MEM, who here is arguing against equal rights for women?
> 
> Also, the equal pay equal work myth is just that, a myth.


It didn't used to be. That's part of the POINT of old world vs new world. That is one of the benefits achieved by feminism.


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> Brennan, you've misunderstood me, I think.
> 
> I said the myth was male family violence, i.e., that men disproportionately committed family violence and it was a myth perped by feminists based on surveys of women in shelters.


Well who would use statistics from WOMEN'S shelters to make conclusions about domestic abuse against men?

I don't think anyone is denying that there are negative effects of feminism. I think the rabid/radical feminists do as much of a disservice to feminism as the worst Archie Bunker.




> I don't deny or discount the existence of family violence, only the feminist myth about male-dominated family violence.


I would be interested to see some actual statistics to back this claim up. The problem seems to be that domestic violence against men is so hard observe and get statistics on, that there IS no reliable information.

That is neither here nor there as I think it is safe to say that any human group, feminism among them, is going to have folks who are wrong. I would not throw the baby out with the bath water because of some error. I guess that is me.



> Feminism had led to a change in laws surrounding marriage - I.e., no fault divorce and abortion, both of which have corrupted our culture.


Well each of us places value differently. I think no fault divorce is a net good thing. I think the availability of abortion is a VERY good thing. I think the way to stamp out abortion is through education and availability of bc. I don't think the way to promote marriage is to FORCE people to stay where they are dysfunctional.





> and I said so already. It ios a threat to the institution of marriage. Re-read what I wrote...


What IS the institution of marriage, after all, but a set of contractual arrangements. Time changes contracts to meet the needs of the participants in all areas of the law.


----------



## Deejo

I'll support feminism when women start hitting on me and paying for dates. That'll be new alright ...


----------



## Mom6547

If you want them to pay for dates, tell them to pay for dates. I always paid on dates.


----------



## JMak00

And yet another poster deliberately misreading my comments, even after I clarified twice no less. It's abundantly clear that I was not arguing that there was no male family violence. 

The reason why that feminist theory was a myth is because the research used battered women as the sample rather than the general population. 

Lastly, the institution of marriage is not simply about a contractual arrangement...posters her should know better than that! Though gay marriage supporters are attempting to redefine marriage not only as something other than man and woman but also a loveless contract of obligation. Phooey!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

VT,
There is no point in continuing a discussion with someone who is a delusional, sexist homophobe who thinks the reason for the declines in marriage is because of "the women" and "the gays". 
Honestly, when I see entitled/sexist/angry/over-generalizing like this, the first thing that pops to mind is, "So, what was her name? And what did she do to you?" That goes for many people here. Not worth your time to hit reply.


----------



## JMak00

Brennan, even after I calrified my comment for you, you continued to suggest that I denied the existence of male family violence. If you were reading carefully and still mis construed my comments then it's acting in bad faith as you're falsely attributing something to me that I didn't post.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> And yet another poster deliberately misreading my comments, even after I clarified twice no less. It's abundantly clear that I was not arguing that there was no male family violence.


Geez. Take a chill, pill and be still, Phil. I had not gotten to those posts. Your wording is anything BUT abundantly clear.



> The reason why that feminist theory was a myth is because the research used battered women as the sample rather than the general population.


My point is that it does not make sense to discard the entirety of feminism based on one incorrect piece from one segment of a larger movement.



> Lastly, the institution of marriage is not simply about a contractual arrangement...posters her should know better than that!


I would be curious to see if you could get the posters here to agree on exactly WHAT this institution is though. The actual institution that deals in civil marriage IS the law. So I am not sure what other institution of marriage you are referring to.




> Though gay marriage supporters are attempting to redefine marriage not only as something other than man and woman but also a loveless contract of obligation.


That it can already be used as a loveless contract is not changing though I don't see gay marriage supporters advocating that. They do advocate redefining the law. Many, many of us don't view that as a corruption but a very positive change. Obviously you don't.


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> Brennan, even after I calrified my comment for you, you continued to suggest that I denied the existence of male family violence. If you were reading carefully and still mis construed my comments then it's acting in bad faith as you're falsely attributing something to me that I didn't post.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Do you realize that "existence of male domestic violence" could have several meanings and that perhaps you are not as clear as you THINK you are?

No one is intentionally misinterpreting you.


----------



## Mom6547

Brennan said:


> VT,
> There is no point in continuing a discussion with someone who is a delusional, sexist homophobe who thinks the reason for the declines in marriage is because of "the women" and "the gays".


There may be other people out there reading. Who knows. In a lot of ways, one gentleman here is proving my point for me. Feminism happened. Its effects are here to stay. And some folk have a terrible time adapting, decrying a return to the old ways. The old ways are not coming back, and the pool of women who are going to enter into old way marriages I think is just going to shrink and shrink.



> Honestly, when I see entitled/sexist/angry/over-generalizing like this, the first thing that pops to mind is, "So, what was her name? And what did she do to you?" That goes for many people here. Not worth your time to hit reply.


The alternative is cleaning the kitchen. I don't feel like cleaning the kitchen.


----------



## Deejo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> If you want them to pay for dates, tell them to pay for dates. I always paid on dates.


No. No. No. Silly ... I want them to know that they are SUPPOSED to pay for dates to have the pleasure of my company.

I'm tired of my role as being the instigator in pursuing the coupling equation ... because ... wait for it ... 

that's the old way.


----------



## lime

I am about a generation younger than most of the people here, so I have a very different experience of these issues. I was raised to be comfortable with myself and my femininity, and I never felt that pressing need to prove myself to anyone, male or female. Honestly, if I had seen these boards when I was in high school, I would have been utterly _floored_ by all of the animosity bouncing around in here. But now I realize that many people here have been disrespected at some point or another, or judged based on their gender.

I honestly believe that even this "new world vs. old world" attitude is starting to become phased out...The "new world" is now giving way to the current school of thought, I suppose I'll call it the "post new world." I feel lucky to be raised in a supportive environment, where gender isn't as big of a deal as it once was. I was raised to celebrate my femininity; not push it aside so that I could make it in a "man's world." I think feminism broke down some important barriers that were limiting women, but it did cause women to give up aspects of their femininity rather than embrace them. I view this as a sacrifice needed to make life easier for the next generation...Feminism isn't all wonderful and perfect, but it did have some really wonderful effects that I get to experience. The sad thing is though that many feminists don't realize this, and instead think that their way is the "right" way to live and think.

That said, I feel like my generation has its own set of issues...Striving for achievement rather than respect...Falling into the trap of taking offense to everything that's not perfectly politically correct...Especially at a very liberal college, everyone is offended by everything! And everyone has to have an academic award for everything, nevermind if their GPA sucks and they can't pass their one required science class.


----------



## Mom6547

So you want people to know what your are thinking without speaking? That's not old or new. That's just dumb.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> No. No. No. Silly ... I want them to know that they are SUPPOSED to pay for dates to have the pleasure of my company.
> 
> I'm tired of my role as being the instigator in pursuing the coupling equation ... because ... wait for it ...
> 
> that's the old way.


I have no idea who you hang around because every woman I know pays for half if not all and they take turns. They also *gasp* ask guys out.
Because......wait for it.....

that's the new way.


----------



## Mom6547

I am missing something. I did not know that there was any rule about who paid. Or who asked out. I thought if you wanted to ask out, you asked out.


----------



## Mom6547

My guess is like minds meet like minds.


----------



## Deejo

Brennan said:


> I have no idea who you hang around because every woman I know pays for half if not all and they take turns. They also *gasp* ask guys out.
> Because......wait for it.....
> 
> that's the new way.


Then for the love of God ... introduce me. Tell them about my breasts ... I'll leave the LED scrotal implants to your discretion.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Then for the love of God ... introduce me. Tell them about my breasts ... I'll leave the LED scrotal implants to your discretion.


You already have a girlfriend my dear. Also, I doubt you could handle the one I would have in mind. She doesn't bite her tongue.


----------



## RandomDude

Deejo said:


> I'll support feminism when women start hitting on me and paying for dates. That'll be new alright ...


Heh reminds me years ago when I was still mucking around, during dating I always offered to pay everything, and when they agreed to it - those ladies are automatically put into my "FFF" or "dumping" zone.

It was the ladies who said no and paid their share that I even bothered to get to know.

BTW: DAMN this thread grows FAST... it was only 3-4 pages last nite.


----------



## Mom6547

Ha! Interesting divergence. I would bet these norms and expectations are different geogrpahically and based on other factors. At one point I suggested to SG that if he wanted to find a submissive old school woman, don't look in New England. Maybe Bible belt, maybe South. I know many christians value submission to god and husband. He got all pissed at me thinking I was slamming them. Ooops! 

But I think it makes sense. Whom you connect with is going to depend on where you hang out. Thus like minds meeting. If you meet your potential mates at church, you are going to get a different group than say at a gay pride parade.


----------



## major misfit

All I'll say at the risk of getting involved in defending a position I have no time nor inclination to defend....THANK YOU for the feminist movement!! They were pioneers and guinea pigs. Maybe they didn't get it "perfect", but then again..nothing is ever perfect.

BTW...I paid for dates without being asked to do so.


----------



## Mom6547

I didn't just pay MY share but his as well. I was a software consultant, and he was a lift attendant at the time. Easy to see who should pay!


----------



## Kobo

Every woman on a message board pays for dates. C'mon ladies the time at taco bell doesn't count. It's Just like every man on the Internet direct line to Warren Buffet to brainstorm investment ideas.


----------



## RandomDude

LOL!


----------



## sisters359

Deejo, sorry to hear you aren't finding the women who are willing to pay their own way. Remember that if you keep running into the same problem, then you need to figure out why and make a change. If they aren't asking you out, maybe you have the wrong words in your profile or need to head to the salon for a make-over (wink!). But, since you are currently involved, these comments are purely academic! May you never have to worry about such things again.

I have *always* paid my own way and his on a rotating and rational basis. If I invite him to go out on a first date, it is my responsibility to pay. If he reciprocates by asking me out, then I will offer to pay and will not make a judgment based on how he takes that. If we keep seeing each other, then it seems easy to take turns and always to pay for anything special I might arrange/invite him to (when costs are greater). But if a guy never offers to pay, then I just would feel used for my money and move on. Hasn't happened, but of course it could. My ex had a grad school friend who never paid for anything, not even a pitcher of beer when the guys were hanging out together. He had a reputation among his friends for that. One woman put up with him as a bf for a while, but she eventually dumped his cheap a*s. The woman he married wouldn't put up with it, told him he needed to respect that she worked hard for her money too and if he wanted to keep seeing he, he had to change, and then he started to reciprocate. I'm sure he'd have walked away from the relationship if she hadn't been that special to him. By standing up for herself, she found out he did value her. Turned out to be a win/win situation.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Kobo said:


> Every woman on a message board pays for dates. C'mon ladies the time at taco bell doesn't count. It's Just like every man on the Internet direct line to Warren Buffet to brainstorm investment ideas.


Maybe if you spelled his name right, he would be willing to take you to Taco Bell and bounce around investment ideas.


----------



## major misfit

Kobo said:


> Every woman on a message board pays for dates. C'mon ladies the time at taco bell doesn't count. It's Just like every man on the Internet direct line to Warren Buffet to brainstorm investment ideas.


Wow...no wonder men have problems with the ladies. I hope men like this wear a sign around their necks, and save a woman from any miserable dates. 
For what it's worth, I was a single mother with 3 kids still at home when I paid for dates. My now SO had a problem with it, but he admired it as well. You wanna ask him?


----------



## Mom6547

Instead he is stuck at the Chinese buffet.


----------



## Kobo

Brennan said:


> Maybe if you spelled his name right, he would be willing to take you to Taco Bell and bounce around investment ideas.


I wondered why he stopped taking my calls!


----------



## Kobo

major misfit said:


> Wow...no wonder men have problems with the ladies. I hope men like this wear a sign around their necks, and save a woman from any miserable dates.
> For what it's worth, I was a single mother with 3 kids still at home when I paid for dates. My now SO had a problem with it, but he admired it as well. You wanna ask him?


Its a joke dear.


----------



## RandomDude

The reality at least from experience here in Sydney - only ~1:20 women passed my little test years ago.

BTW - I've noticed you ladies here are saying you pay for dates, you mean 50/50 or full?


----------



## Kobo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Instead he is stuck at the Chinese buffet.


It's now obvious where you paid for dates...


----------



## sisters359

Kobo said:


> Every woman on a message board pays for dates. C'mon ladies the time at taco bell doesn't count. It's Just like every man on the Internet direct line to Warren Buffet to brainstorm investment ideas.


If Taco Bell is all someone can afford, of course it counts. 

Perhaps you would do better to find a woman who is more of a feminist, then. A real one, who takes full repsonsibility for her own life-expenses, feelings, thoughts, decisions. And definitely call out any woman who calls herself a feminist and then says or acts like "the man should pay." That is a cheap, self-serving corruption of feminism and you have every right to point it out. If she is smart and really likes you, she'll be willing to drop the charade and either admit she's not much of a feminist or that her principles are inconsistent. It does not matter that men on average make more than women when it comes to dating (a justification I've heard some women make) because she can always arrange a date within her budget. But please don't judge her for that--that says more about her income (OR she is just cheap!)

If you feel you are always getting used for your money, then look for a different type of woman. I'm not saying this in a snotty way, either. I sincerely mean it. It's the same for a woman who laments that she always meets a certain type of guy who turns out to be untrustworthy or whatever. She needs to figure out why that keeps happening to her and then change her approach.


----------



## Kobo

sisters359 said:


> If Taco Bell is all someone can afford, of course it counts.
> 
> Perhaps you would do better to find a woman who is more of a feminist, then. A real one, who takes full repsonsibility for her own life-expenses, feelings, thoughts, decisions. And definitely call out any woman who calls herself a feminist and then says or acts like "the man should pay." That is a cheap, self-serving corruption of feminism and you have every right to point it out. If she is smart and really likes you, she'll be willing to drop the charade and either admit she's not much of a feminist or that her principles are inconsistent. It does not matter that men on average make more than women when it comes to dating (a justification I've heard some women make) because she can always arrange a date within her budget. But please don't judge her for that--that says more about her income (OR she is just cheap!)
> 
> If you feel you are always getting used for your money, then look for a different type of woman. I'm not saying this in a snotty way, either. I sincerely mean it. It's the same for a woman who laments that she always meets a certain type of guy who turns out to be untrustworthy or whatever. She needs to figure out why that keeps happening to her and then change her approach.


Once again it's a joke. Which is why i took a shot at men on the Internet also. Of course women pay for meals, the mortgage...now that's a different story!

Is this thing on...


----------



## reachingshore

Personally, I would totally disregard a man who would have qualms paying for a date in full, at least the first one. If we got on a date, he would have to be the one asking me out 

If he has a problem, it tells me he does NOT think of me as a lady (does not respect/appreciate/value me).

Seems to me, many men from my generation would flunk that test!


----------



## major misfit

Kobo said:


> Its a joke dear.


Aren't most jokes like that the truth in disguise, DEAR?


----------



## Mom6547

reaching, it is a matter of getting someone like you. There are plenty of men on here who would love to pay. But you had better be ready to put out regularly!


----------



## RandomDude

A woman who agrees to me paying the date -> I go, "meh, not my type"

A woman who says no and pays her share -> I go, "woot! a potential!"

A woman who says no and pays in full -> I go, "WTF is wrong with you woman? Have you no game? Stand up for yourself!"


----------



## major misfit

RandomDude said:


> A woman who agrees to me paying the date -> I go, "meh, not my type"
> 
> A woman who says no and pays her share -> I go, "woot! a potential!"
> 
> A woman who says no and pays in full -> I go, "WTF is wrong with you woman? Have you no game? Stand up for yourself!"




So you ask a woman out with the intention of HER paying for it? Going "dutch" (that's what it's called) is something agreed upon ahead of time. Where's YOUR game? 
You don't ask a woman out unless you intend on paying. If you have more dates afterwards, then any woman worth her salt is going to pay for the date IN FULL. If she asks you out, SHE pays. IN FULL.


----------



## Kobo

major misfit said:


> Aren't most jokes like that the truth in disguise, DEAR?


Once again it's a joke. If you feel there is truth to it then its on you. i've never had an issue with girls, ladies, women (depending on our ages) paying for things. Did I pay most of time? Sure. Did they pay a decent amount of the time? Yup. It actually didn't matter to me either way. I always went into a date expecting to pay. I never discussed before hand who would pay. It was great if she reached for the check but not expected, wanted, or needed. Dear.


----------



## reachingshore

major misfit said:


> So you ask a woman out with the intention of HER paying for it? Going "dutch" (that's what it's called) is something agreed upon ahead of time. Where's YOUR game?
> *You* don't ask a woman out unless *you intend on paying*. If you have more dates afterwards, then any woman worth her salt is going to pay for the date IN FULL. If *she* asks you out, *SHE pays. IN FULL.*


Don't mind me saying this, but.. I luv you


----------



## RandomDude

major misfit said:


> So you ask a woman out with the intention of HER paying for it? Going "dutch" (that's what it's called) is something agreed upon ahead of time. Where's YOUR game?
> You don't ask a woman out unless you intend on paying. If you have more dates afterwards, then any woman worth her salt is going to pay for the date IN FULL. If she asks you out, SHE pays. IN FULL.


No, I go out expecting nothing 

I let her show me what type of women she is, my test was a gauge I used to determine character. I always offer to pay, always. But it was the women who refused to let me pay in full, that I bothered to even get to know.


----------



## Deejo

Brennan said:


> You already have a girlfriend my dear. Also, I doubt you could handle the one I would have in mind. She doesn't bite her tongue.


Oh yeah ...

She just offered to buy me lunch at Panera. Nevermind ...


----------



## reachingshore

Actually, if after agreeing to go out on a date I would be put off by something in a guy, I would insist on paying my half and paying it. No putting out for me! LOL

Puts a little different perspective on your test and its results. 

Come on, it's a question of a simple courtesy. You invite, you assume you will pay in full, because you issued the invitation. The other person may mention chipping in, but this is not something you should or could expect. This gender-power struggle, who should pay, how much - that's completely unnecessary. Savoir vivre, anyone?


----------



## Deejo

major misfit said:


> You don't ask a woman out unless you intend on paying.


This ... was my point.

And in the scheme of things, it's still pointless. 

It's 'old school'. Boy chases girl. Boy woos girl. Girl decides whether or not boy gets to go up her shirt. It isn't going to change much ... ever.


----------



## RandomDude

Aye, and that's the type of women I go for - someone I can respect.

It was a harsh test in the past yes, but I did manage to filter out the ones not really my type using it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Oh yeah ...
> 
> She just offered to buy me lunch at Panera. Nevermind ...


Funny, I just got back from lunch with hubby. I paid. Odd how that works, isn't it. 

Panera, yum! We had portobello mushroom ravioli.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> This ... was my point.
> 
> And in the scheme of things, it's still pointless.
> 
> It's 'old school'. Boy chases girl. Boy woos girl. Girl decides whether or not boy gets to go up her shirt. It isn't going to change much ... ever.


If I get asked out on a date, I assume I am paying for myself. Period. 
I also decide if I want to put my hand down his pants, provided he let's me.


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> It's 'old school'. Boy chases girl. Boy woos girl. Girl decides whether or not boy gets to go up her shirt. It isn't going to change much ... ever.


I am cracking up remembering a date I had in which I was terribly frustrated. I had made the mistake of going out with a save it for marriage guy for a while. I was so horned out. And he turned me down COLD.


----------



## Mom6547

I don't think I would make any assumption as to who was paying. I would make sure I had enough to cover the bill just in case.


----------



## lime

I really don't understand all these "tests" and rules for paying or not paying...

For younger twenty somethings it's becoming less and less important. When my current boyfriend asked me out, I offered to split the tab with him--this was not to pass some test, but mostly because we were both broke students and it was just the logical choice. Sometimes he treats me, sometimes I treat him, sometimes we split it, but we don't really keep score or judge each other either way.

I do find it interesting though that we can afford to go out to eat at decent restaurants as students (yes we have bills and living expenses but we budget). If we can, then my guess is that the majority of older people with jobs can well afford it...But a $30 or even $100 meal is a much, much smaller portion of your salary. Who cares who pays? It barely costs you anything. Why is it such a big deal?

I find it strange that men complain about having to spend such a small portion of their paycheck to get to know someone on a date...AND that some women out there feel the need to be cheap with stuff like that. 

RandomDude, has it ever occurred to you that those women you're dating have no idea that you're testing them? Maybe if you reach for the check, they feel awkward stopping you and asking to split it. Or maybe they're judging _you_ for just leaving the bill sitting there before you hesitantly pick it up if they don't offer to split. It's better to be clear about expectations, because if you aren't, you never know if that girl is just cheap or worried about offending you by offering to pay a portion (or all).


----------



## RandomDude

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I am cracking up remembering a date I had in which I was terribly frustrated. I had made the mistake of going out with a save it for marriage guy for a while. I was so horned out. And he turned me down COLD.


Heh, those types just take time 

One thing leads to another, first the flirts, then the looks, then the touching, then the kiss, then more touching... and more touching... until... 



lime said:


> RandomDude, has it ever occurred to you that those women you're dating have no idea that you're testing them? Maybe if you reach for the check, they feel awkward stopping you and asking to split it. Or maybe they're judging _you_ for just leaving the bill sitting there before you hesitantly pick it up if they don't offer to split. It's better to be clear about expectations, because if you aren't, you never know if that girl is just cheap or worried about offending you by offering to pay a portion (or all).


Of course they had no idea. And what you mean leaving the bill sitting there? I always offered to pay 

I never had expectations, I don't trust words either, I trust action.



> you never know if that girl is just cheap or worried about offending you by offering to pay a portion (or all)


And both - not my type. I have very specific standards, hence I only fell in love twice. Others were just 'in-betweens' really. I don't accept any less but what I want when it comes to a relationship. Dating/playing around - another story, haven't done that in 2 years however - marriage.


----------



## Mom6547

Brennan said:


> Funny, I just got back from lunch with hubby. I paid. Odd how that works, isn't it.


Once married, how does one or the other pay? Do you have separate finances? 

We joke about wanna make a bet. How do we pay ourselves?


----------



## Mom6547

RandomDude said:


> Heh, those types just take time
> 
> One thing leads to another, first the flirts, then the looks, then the touching, then the kiss, then more touching... and more touching... until...


Until I was positively DYING. He stood fast. I dumped him. But not really for that. He was a seriously religious guy. I was Catholic in name only even then. Incompatibilities ....


----------



## RandomDude

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Until I was positively DYING. He stood fast. I dumped him. But not really for that. He was a seriously religious guy. I was Catholic in name only even then. Incompatibilities ....


Ah, religious, I prefer spiritual rather then religious :smthumbup:
But that's just me.


----------



## Deejo

Brennan said:


> If I get asked out on a date, I assume I am paying for myself. Period.
> I also decide if I want to put my hand down his pants, provided he let's me.


Apparently I REALLY need to get myself out to San Diego or Austin if this is the modus operandi.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Once married, how does one or the other pay? Do you have separate finances?
> 
> We joke about wanna make a bet. How do we pay ourselves?


No, not separate finances. I just whipped out the card faster.  When we dated, I paid for myself, everytime. That way I don't owe anybody anything.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Apparently I REALLY need to get myself out to San Diego or Austin if this is the modus operandi.


Yeah, "wish they all could beat California girls".

:smthumbup:


----------



## sisters359

Deejo, you know the ol' saying; it's about 3 things:

Location! Location! Location!


----------



## RandomDude

Since marriage the missus never had to even ask to spend my cash (as sole provider).

I just thought "I trust her with my life" "I love her, it's my duty to provide as she takes care of my daughter" "She's not the type to take it for granted"... in the end, it seems it backfired to the point she started to take it for granted.

Or maybe I just didn't marry the same person that I fell in love with all those years ago (due to external issues...)


----------



## lime

RandomDude, that makes sense then if you're really picky. 

I suppose I'm the same way...I wouldn't really like dating someone who always kept score or who tested me with things like that. Honestly I'm too spacey to remember the last time I paid, because it's not really important to me. Luckily, my boyfriend doesn't really find it that important either. Maybe that's why we have so much fun when we go out to eat


----------



## RandomDude

Aye, no one likes to be tested, hence they never know! xD

Ne ways I've always been picky, and also had (more like have actually) a trust issue - I never believe anything anyone says until I get to know them, just how I am due to my childhood, it's a permanent stuck trait lol

Once the trust is there however, it's there to stay.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

RandomDude said:


> Since marriage the missus never had to even ask to spend my cash (as sole provider).
> 
> I just thought "I trust her with my life" "I love her, it's my duty to provide as she takes care of my daughter" "She's not the type to take it for granted"... in the end, it seems it backfired to the point she started to take it for granted.
> 
> Or maybe I just didn't marry the same person that I fell in love with all those years ago (due to external issues...)


I think therein lies your problem..."your cash". She is a stay at home Mom and you call it your cash. What exactly is hers then?

My husband was the sole provider for 7 years and never in a million years would he call it "his cash", ever. It was ours. I stayed home and took care of the kids so he could go out and storm the castle. It was a partnership that both of us benefited from.


----------



## JMak00

Delusional, sexist, and homophobic??

Like I said, Brennan, you're closed-minded. Yu clearly believe that there isno reasonable, legitimate basis for someone to disagree with you. That's why I must be delusional and sexist and homophobic.

BTW, where did I ever assert that a decline in marriage (whatever that means) is caused by women and gays, as you now claim I stated? You are lying. You just didn't make a simple mistake. You know I didn't say anything remotely close to that. 

What I did say was that I thought fenminism was rotting our culture through it's transmission of myths surrounding male family violence and economic discrimination. I also stated that I thought gay marriage was attempting to redefine the institution of marriage in a fundamental way. 

Please do not be so close-minded as to believe that there is no legitimate, reaosnable basis to disagree with you and that another's disgareement with you is delusion, sexism, homophobia, etc. 



Brennan said:


> VT,
> There is no point in continuing a discussion with someone who is a delusional, sexist homophobe who thinks the reason for the declines in marriage is because of "the women" and "the gays".
> Honestly, when I see entitled/sexist/angry/over-generalizing like this, the first thing that pops to mind is, "So, what was her name? And what did she do to you?" That goes for many people here. Not worth your time to hit reply.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RandomDude

Brennan said:


> I think therein lies your problem..."your cash". She is a stay at home Mom and you call it your cash. What exactly is hers then?
> 
> My husband was the sole provider for 7 years and never in a million years would he call it "his cash", ever. It was ours. I stayed home and took care of the kids so he could go out and storm the castle. It was a partnership that both of us benefited from.


Yes, but I'm having a hard thing thinking about how it's not MY cash at the moment considering what's happening at present.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

RandomDude said:


> Yes, but I'm having a hard thing thinking about how it's not MY cash at the moment considering what's happening at present.


I don't think having that thought process is helping your situation any. For me, I would be very offended if that was my husband's attitude.


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> BTW, where did I ever assert that a decline in marriage (whatever that means) is caused by women and gays, as you now claim I stated?


Well the failure to understand your point, if it is no that, is not hers alone. Your writing is not terribly clear. 



> I also stated that I thought gay marriage was attempting to redefine the institution of marriage in a fundamental way.


Corrupt was the word you used, actually.


----------



## RandomDude

She's probably very offended right now, considering she now has zero cash to spend from our joint account.


----------



## JMak00

VT, I'm not dismissing feminism based on a single thing. I stated that I thought it had had a corrosive, corrupting impact on our culture and someone asked about that statement. I picked two myths established and pushed by feminism to demonstrate why I thought it was corrosive to our culture. That's not the same as dismissing the existence, impact, or relevance of the movement. But you knew that already. 

The institution of marriage is simply not defined by the law. It is much larger and more important than a set of contractual obligations. This is the hook most gay marriage supporters use to argue that gay marriage doesn't fundamentally change marriage... Of course gay marriage doesn't change marriage if all marriage is a civil contract. However, if that's all marriage was then gay couples would not be seeking marriage at all. But they do because marriage confers a status to a relationship, an acknowledgement of something more than a civil affairs arrangment. See how that contractual argument breaks down?

We don't get marriaed to formalize our respoinsibilities to one another. Yet, gay marriage advoated define down what marriage is so that they can argue that there's really nothing changing at all...so let them marry. Except, what's happened is thay marriage as a social institution for procreation and family unit to raise children is completely destroyed. That's how the institution is destroyed. Marriage only exists to bind a man and a woman for procreation and child rearing. It's the most successful arrangement for raising children, errr, perpetuating our species. 

But maybe marriage is just about a contractual arrangement... 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

RandomDude said:


> She's probably very offended right now, considering she now has zero cash to spend from our joint account.


This is a good thing to you? Your wife and mother of your child with zero access to money? From your joint account? 
That's really low.


----------



## sisters359

RandomDude said:


> She's probably very offended right now, considering she now has zero cash to spend from our joint account.


Made me laugh, but be careful. Don't know your laws there and I think this can be interpreted as abandonment in some places.

I might be totally wrong, so don't freak out; just find out!


----------



## JMak00

I've used corrupt, redefine, fundamentally change...

It's all the same. Marriage is a man and woman. Gay marriage corrupts that definition, no? It fundamentally changes the instition, no? I think you're relying on a very narrow definition of corrupt.



vthomeschoolmom said:


> Well the failure to understand your point, if it is no that, is not hers alone. Your writing is not terribly clear.
> 
> 
> Corrupt was the word you used, actually.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RandomDude

Brennan said:


> This is a good thing to you? Your wife and mother of your child with zero access to money? From your joint account?
> That's really low.


Just curious, have you read my thread in the private section? I wouldn't mind some opposing views such as this actually.



> Made me laugh, but be careful. Don't know your laws there and I think this can be interpreted as abandonment in some places.
> 
> I might be totally wrong, so don't freak out; just find out!


I know, but I'm not taking her back, my daughter however - I shouldn't have let her take her. It's kinda difficult thinking about how to wrestle her away from the missus at the moment.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

RD,
Yes I read your post. You threw her out, you wonder where the former woman went, she has changed, turned to some weird religion.
Forgive me, but what about you? Do you not have pancreatitis from drinking so heavily and you are only in your late 20's? Do you think your wife ever wonders what happened to you? It goes both ways.
So you toss her out and remove any access to funds. That's low, dude.


----------



## RandomDude

If it is to you, then so be it, but I wouldn't have done anything differently if I had to turn back time to xmas day.

What I would have done however, is yes, turn back time 2 years and start over to fix my errors and failings as a husband so it would never ever have come to this point. 1 error, is yes, spoiling my wife.


----------



## Trenton

RandomDude said:


> Since marriage the missus never had to even ask to spend my cash (as sole provider).
> 
> I just thought "I trust her with my life" "I love her, it's my duty to provide as she takes care of my daughter" "She's not the type to take it for granted"... in the end, it seems it backfired to the point she started to take it for granted.
> 
> Or maybe I just didn't marry the same person that I fell in love with all those years ago (due to external issues...)


I'm a stay at home mom and have three rugrats. My husband has been the sole provider for the last 8 years out of 14. Never, ever, ever has he withheld anything from me or told me it was his money and I have been far from the perfect wife. I do all the bills and spend what I like to. Although I will admit I don't spend much, I'm low maintenance because I don't value materialistic things.

From my perspective, it seems unfair to have an unspoken contract about finances and then use it against one spouse or the other. It seems like you love your wife but almost have difficulty with routine. Maybe you create friction because you need the friction in the marriage?


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> VT, I'm not dismissing feminism based on a single thing. I stated that I thought it had had a corrosive, corrupting impact on our culture and someone asked about that statement. I picked two myths established and pushed by feminism to demonstrate why I thought it was corrosive to our culture. That's not the same as dismissing the existence, impact, or relevance of the movement. But you knew that already.


No I didn't. I have enjoyed speaking with you. I would like to continue. But if you want to challenge my motives in this way, I will simply ignore or block you. YOU are responsible for your failure to communicate. I am neither dishonest, nor attempting to change your meaning. I have no desire to misrepresent you.




> The institution of marriage is simply not defined by the law. It is much larger and more important than a set of contractual obligations.


What is this institution then? What are the laws? And who decides them? Social convention? I just want to understand precisely what you mean by "the institution of marriage."

I do agree with you that marriage means more than just a legal contract to most people. If it weren't, gay people would not have bothered to fight so hard for the right. 

I agree that social norms are changing. I think the real thing that you and I disagree about is that it is changing in a negative way. I think *on balance* it is changing in positive ways.




> This is the hook most gay marriage supporters use to argue that gay marriage doesn't fundamentally change marriage...


It doesn't fundamentally change MY marriage. By granting them rights, they aren't altering my rights at all. That is what is meant by that. I don't think anyone would argue that society is not changing.




> Of course gay marriage doesn't change marriage if all marriage is a civil contract. However, if that's all marriage was then gay couples would not be seeking marriage at all. But they do because marriage confers a status to a relationship, an acknowledgement of something more than a civil affairs arrangment.


No they KNOW the status it confers. And that is what is DESIRED. The right to that status. What the argument you are not accurately citing is arguing that it does not lessen HETERO marriage. The conference of rights, status on gays does not fundamentally change the rights and status of heteros one whit. And I would agree with that. That my friend was able to marry her girlfriend has change not one thing about the depth of family, commitment, the view of society toward me and my family at all.



> We don't get marriaed to formalize our respoinsibilities to one another.


We don't? Many do. I think you are defining marriage more narrowly than many hetero would.



> Yet, gay marriage advoated define down what marriage is so that they can argue that there's really nothing changing at all...so let them marry. Except, what's happened is thay marriage as a social institution for procreation and family unit to raise children is completely destroyed.


How is it completely destroyed? I find myself still successfully able to raise my kids. Can't reproduce anymore, but that has little to do with gay people. I don't see what you see has been destroyed.





> That's how the institution is destroyed. Marriage only exists to bind a man and a woman for procreation and child rearing.


Yet many people marry and remain child free by choice. They are allowed. 



> It's the most successful arrangement for raising children, errr, perpetuating our species.


I don't agree with that even a little bit. I have seen a-wipes of married parents, and I have seen stellar single parents. The idea that we can cause a stable family by encouraging legal marriage is, in my opinion, a thoroughly failed concept.


----------



## RandomDude

@Trenton



> Heh, for 2 years she never had to bloody ask me for anything, she just gets it, no permission needed to be asked with money, she just SPENDS... I never even bloody cared - I'm not a big spender myself, and I got good money coming in. I'm only working just for her and my kid - and this what I get in return: No f--king respect. Pfft


http://talkaboutmarriage.com/financial-problems-marriage/19812-joint-account-mistake.html


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> I've used corrupt, redefine, fundamentally change...


If you think "corrupt" and "fundamentally change" are the same then I can see where the communication gap comes from.

Enough said.


> It's all the same. Marriage is a man and woman.


Not any more it doesn't.


> Gay marriage corrupts that definition, no? It fundamentally changes the instition, no? I think you're relying on a very narrow definition of corrupt.


Corrupt carries a value judgment that change does not.
I point you to actual definitions for your edification. 

define:corrupt - Google Search

I think defile comes closest to your usage.


----------



## reachingshore

JMak00 said:


> Marriage is a man and woman. Gay marriage corrupts that definition, no?


Yes, in like 15th century, when the Church had a LOT to say about marriages and defining the concept. Today marriage is NOT needed to procreate. Today marriage is needed to formalize the union of two people, their rights and obligations to one another, all in accordance with secular law.

As far as gay couples raising children, I am undecided, leaning towards 'why not?'. Not enough Data.


----------



## Mom6547

reachingshore said:


> As far as gay couples raising children, I am undecided, leaning towards 'why not?'. Not enough Data.


Lord knows plenty of heteros have screwed the pooch doing it. Let them have a stab as well.


----------



## Trenton

JMak00 said:


> VT, I'm not dismissing feminism based on a single thing. I stated that I thought it had had a corrosive, corrupting impact on our culture and someone asked about that statement. I picked two myths established and pushed by feminism to demonstrate why I thought it was corrosive to our culture. That's not the same as dismissing the existence, impact, or relevance of the movement. But you knew that already.
> 
> The institution of marriage is simply not defined by the law. It is much larger and more important than a set of contractual obligations. This is the hook most gay marriage supporters use to argue that gay marriage doesn't fundamentally change marriage... Of course gay marriage doesn't change marriage if all marriage is a civil contract. However, if that's all marriage was then gay couples would not be seeking marriage at all. But they do because marriage confers a status to a relationship, an acknowledgement of something more than a civil affairs arrangment. See how that contractual argument breaks down?
> 
> We don't get marriaed to formalize our respoinsibilities to one another. Yet, gay marriage advoated define down what marriage is so that they can argue that there's really nothing changing at all...so let them marry. Except, what's happened is thay marriage as a social institution for procreation and family unit to raise children is completely destroyed. That's how the institution is destroyed. Marriage only exists to bind a man and a woman for procreation and child rearing. It's the most successful arrangement for raising children, errr, perpetuating our species.
> 
> But maybe marriage is just about a contractual arrangement...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You said you didn't want to get down in it but seem to want to get down in it. Even if I agree that feminism has backfired and had side effects that were negative and corrosive, you have to go back to the root to find out why it sprung up to begin with.


----------



## Trenton

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I would be curious to know what it means to be dominant in the bedroom. I was going to say my DH is dominant in the bed room. But then I had to rethink. When we are playing rough, bdsm and such, he is more frequently dom though we do switch up from time to time. But the majority of the time we aren't rough. It would be hard to say who is dominant. Or if anyone is dominant.
> 
> Neither one of us is dominant in the rest of our marriage. We ask each other before we spend outside the normal budget. We discuss new matters of child rearing when they come up. I DO tend to make travel or entertainment plans without his prior opinion because he generally doesn't voice and opinion.
> 
> We each have our roles. I pay the bills and do the budget stuff. The kids and I are responsible for the majority of house work since we are home all day. I am responsible for education, curricular planning... He is responsible for bringing home the bacon. He is responsible for the cars. We share lawn care. Since we live in the boon docks, if we don't care for our lawn, no one knows but us!
> 
> But these are roles, not really decision making things. They have habit based expectation about them. If things deviate from the norm, we discuss them.
> 
> I wonder if dominance is even necessary in a relationship? Obviously it works for some relationships. I don't doubt Deejo when he says it does. But I don't see it as a necessary ingredient in a relationship.


Sorry, VT, missed this. It's a looooong thread. 

When I say he is dominant in the bedroom I mean that I submit to him no matter what but in fairness to him, he has never abused this and is very interested in pleasing me as well as himself. It is the one thing he wants and I feel happy that I can give it to him. I enjoy this act of submission but it doesn't carry over to the rest of our relationship.

Outside of the bedroom I basically control most other issues such as bills, spending, arranging any things we are doing or who we spend time with. I think he is submissive in this regard and has told me point blank that he recognizes that having control over these things that are not as important to him seem to make me feel better and he is happy to do this as well.


----------



## Pandakiss

im new skool, but in dating, im old skool, you ask you pay in full. i ask...dutch. double standard?? sure. im still a girl, and i expect to be treated like a lady, and i will say thank you for you picking up the check.

my husband and i never did "date", we lived together before he got his first job.

we dont have seperate monies, he works i take care of the 4 children...and i wanna say, they are driving me crazy...when will school be in...this is the longest christmas va-ca EVER...anyway...

we date now, and he pulls out the money, and if he looks at me like i gave it to you..pay the check...i look confussed and faux pat my pockets, we laugh. i pay for coffee usually.

i always say, when it comes to cash, once you hand it over, it dosent matter what "purpose" you labeled it under, it changes. like my mom would gve me 100 dollars, later she would say you still have some money?? no. its my money, i gave you the least you could do is not spend it all. this cracks me up, it was cash. checks, you can write in the memo area, money orders same thing...but oncee cash is handed over, its the peron who is holding it.


----------



## MEM2020

Last night we were reading Christmas cards. We got one from a guy I used to work with and am friends with. Back then he was straight or seemed so. A few years ago he met and entered into a civil union with another guy. They both have excellent jobs and are very smart. 

My very Catholic wife was reading their card and commenting that she is uneasy about the fact that these two men have adopted two young children from southeast asia. 

By the way - she likes/respects my friend but does not know his partner. 

I asked her: ok - lets make you bio-mom for these two little kids. You have a choice - they can be adopted by a man/woman with limited education, limited financial stability and minor substance abuse problems. OR they can be adopted by these two men. 

She immediately picked the men. Though she added that all other things being equal she would hands down select a male/female pair over a same sex pair. Her view is that it is a role model thing. 





vthomeschoolmom said:


> No I didn't. I have enjoyed speaking with you. I would like to continue. But if you want to challenge my motives in this way, I will simply ignore or block you. YOU are responsible for your failure to communicate. I am neither dishonest, nor attempting to change your meaning. I have no desire to misrepresent you.
> 
> 
> 
> What is this institution then? What are the laws? And who decides them? Social convention? I just want to understand precisely what you mean by "the institution of marriage."
> 
> I do agree with you that marriage means more than just a legal contract to most people. If it weren't, gay people would not have bothered to fight so hard for the right.
> 
> I agree that social norms are changing. I think the real thing that you and I disagree about is that it is changing in a negative way. I think *on balance* it is changing in positive ways.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't fundamentally change MY marriage. By granting them rights, they aren't altering my rights at all. That is what is meant by that. I don't think anyone would argue that society is not changing.
> 
> 
> 
> No they KNOW the status it confers. And that is what is DESIRED. The right to that status. What the argument you are not accurately citing is arguing that it does not lessen HETERO marriage. The conference of rights, status on gays does not fundamentally change the rights and status of heteros one whit. And I would agree with that. That my friend was able to marry her girlfriend has change not one thing about the depth of family, commitment, the view of society toward me and my family at all.
> 
> 
> We don't? Many do. I think you are defining marriage more narrowly than many hetero would.
> 
> 
> How is it completely destroyed? I find myself still successfully able to raise my kids. Can't reproduce anymore, but that has little to do with gay people. I don't see what you see has been destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet many people marry and remain child free by choice. They are allowed.
> 
> 
> I don't agree with that even a little bit. I have seen a-wipes of married parents, and I have seen stellar single parents. The idea that we can cause a stable family by encouraging legal marriage is, in my opinion, a thoroughly failed concept.


----------



## Trenton

I totally expect the guy to pick up the check, spoil me without me asking, buy me flowers (or pick'em), hold the door open for me, etc.

I'm unclear why we can't do away with the bad things from the old world and incorporate them into the new world. I don't want to lose my feminineness or take on man roles. I want the freedom to be appreciated & respected for being myself at home and in the workforce. I offer the same in return to others.

In the first sentence in the second paragraph, I meant to say that I don't understand why we can't do away with the bad things from the old world and incorporate the good things into the new world. Hope you all got that but just in case.


----------



## Mom6547

MEM11363 said:


> She immediately picked the men. Though she added that all other things being equal she would hands down select a male/female pair over a same sex pair. Her view is that it is a role model thing.


I think the role model thing is a red herring, frankly. You don't need your gender models to be your parents in my opinion.


----------



## Trenton

I'm totally for gay marriage and for them being able to adopt/surrogate children. It's a no-brainer for me but I'm from Jersey and have no religious background so I'm sure it's not a surprise.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> I totally expect the guy to pick up the check, spoil me without me asking, buy me flowers (or pick'em), hold the door open for me, etc.


Blech. Sorry, Trenton, you lost me there. I want to vomit when a guy goes to hold the door open for me. I can dead lift more than you, you Pansie!  The exception will come when I am elderly. I always hold doors for people who are physically limited.



> I'm unclear why we can't do away with the bad things from the old world and incorporate them into the new world. I don't want to lose my feminineness or take on man roles.


What is a man's role? To work outside the home? To mow the lawn? yah. I want to take on "man's role."

Femininity does not need to go away. My husband likes my hair long. I wear my hair long. I like dresses and high heeled shoes. Pink ones! 

I may want male "roles" but I don't want to be a man. But then sometimes I DO put on my carharts to split wood. Or change the oil. Why would I wait when I can do it myself?


----------



## reachingshore

To be honest the only concern I have about gay couples raising kids has nothing to do with them being gay. 

It's like this: mommy and daddy cringe when their 10 year old kid starts asking the grownup/gender/sex questions and the adults try to weasel out of the answer with the bees and flowers story. 

Now those kinds of questions will start popping up much earlier in case of a kid raised by same-gender parents. So what kind of c0ck and bull stories will they feel obliged to come up with? 

C0ck and bull?


----------



## Mom6547

reachingshore said:


> To be honest the only concern I have about gay couples raising kids has nothing to do with them being gay.
> 
> It's like this: mommy and daddy cringe when their 10 year old kid starts asking the grownup/gender/sex questions and the adults try to weasel out of the answer with the bees and flowers story.


God help the kids of these parents, gay or straight! 




> Now those kinds of questions will start popping up much earlier in case of a kid raised by same-gender parents. So what kind of c0ck and bull stories will they feel obliged to come up with?


How about the truth? It tends to make a good story.


----------



## Trenton

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Blech. Sorry, Trenton, you lost me there. I want to vomit when a guy goes to hold the door open for me. I can dead lift more than you, you Pansie!  The exception will come when I am elderly. I always hold doors for people who are physically limited.
> 
> 
> What is a man's role? To work outside the home? To mow the lawn? yah. I want to take on "man's role."
> 
> Femininity does not need to go away. My husband likes my hair long. I wear my hair long. I like dresses and high heeled shoes. Pink ones!
> 
> I may want male "roles" but I don't want to be a man. But then sometimes I DO put on my carharts to split wood. Or change the oil. Why would I wait when I can do it myself?


Exactly. So the point being that we should as individuals be able to choose what we find attractive and unattractive behavior and create our lives around whatever that is regardless of whether it is classified as new world or old world.

I do mow the lawn. Don't know why but I love to. I think feminism brought about our ability to make choices for ourselves and that is a good side effect.


----------



## reachingshore

vthomeschoolmom said:


> God help the kids of these parents, gay or straight!
> 
> How about the truth? It tends to make a good story.




Obviously that would be the best LOL

I don't have my own kids yet, so I haven't gotten around to actually having to explain all that to them. Thus, I can't actually wrap my head around the concept of how it would look like to be (semi-)truthful to a 5 year old who comes back home from the playground with some "news" of his own, given the complexity of the issue and vast social stigma.


----------



## Mom6547

reachingshore said:


> Obviously that would be the best LOL
> 
> I don't have my own kids yet, so I haven't gotten around to actually having to explain all that to them.


I can't even understand what the Big Hairy Deal is. My kids, 10 and 7, know more about sex than most 15yos I swear. I don't thank my mother for telling me next to nothing or some nonsense stories.





> Thus, I can't actually wrap my head around the concept of how it would look like to be (semi-)truthful to a 5 year old who comes back home from the playground with some "news" of his own, given the complexity of the issue and vast social stigma.


What vast social stigma?


----------



## RandomDude

This thread is difficult to keep up with, it was only 3-4 pages yesterday too lol


----------



## reachingshore

vthomeschoolmom said:


> What vast social stigma?


Same-sex parents will be socially discriminated against for quite some time, even after they get a legislative 'go' on adopting/using surrogate services. 

Kids hear everything parents say and repeat everything, even mirroring the parents' stance. So a kid of a hetero couple will repeat all that to the gay couple's kid and there you go.

Granted, may be I am looking too much into it.


----------



## Mom6547

reachingshore said:


> Same-sex parents will be socially discriminated against for quite some time, even after they get a legislative 'go' on adopting/using surrogate services.


That was what they used to say to prevent the adoption for cross race married people. 



> Kids hear everything parents say and repeat everything, even mirroring the parents' stance. So a kid of a hetero couple will repeat all that to the gay couple's kid and there you go.


So there we go where? So this happens? So what?


----------



## lime

reachingshore said:


> Same-sex parents will be socially discriminated against for quite some time, even after they get a legislative 'go' on adopting/using surrogate services.
> 
> Kids hear everything parents say and repeat everything, even mirroring the parents' stance. So a kid of a hetero couple will repeat all that to the gay couple's kid and there you go.
> 
> Granted, may be I am looking too much into it.


So because social discrimination exists, we should perpetuate that same discrimination by not letting committed homosexuals adopt children?

Something has to break down the barrier, and if it's a couple of awkward conversations between uptight parents and their 5-year-old, then so be it. We all face discrimination in some ways and need to find a way to overcome it.


----------



## reachingshore

vthomeschoolmom said:


> That was what they used to say to prevent the adoption for cross race married people.


Haven't heard of that (I am not American nor do I live in America, if that matters). How did it go for them?




> So there we go where? So this happens? So what?


You asked why I wrote "vast social stigma". I elaborated on how I imagine it would impact a truthful conversation with a 5 year old. So what, you ask? I don't know yet, not enough data


----------



## RandomDude

vthomeschoolmom said:


> That was what they used to say to prevent the adoption for cross race married people.


Heh, racialism.


----------



## reachingshore

Hmm.. I am not sure whether I should clarify this.. since I wrote that in my previous post.. I mean a 5 year old who is a child of a same sex couple.


----------



## Mom6547

reachingshore said:


> Haven't heard of that (I am not American nor do I live in America, if that matters). How did it go for them?


For whom? The children? Badly. It was not always a lot of fun. But the greater good was achieved. No one even blinks at interracial couples anymore. 

Kids are going to endure garbage from other kids regardless. For me, I would rather have my kids endure garbage based on some matter of import that what brand jeans they bought or something stupid like that.





> You asked why I wrote "vast social stigma". I elaborated on how I imagine it would impact a truthful conversation with a 5 year old. So what, you ask? I don't know yet, not enough data


I don't know what stigma to which you are referring. But as far as I am concerned, the fact that a 5yo is going to get slurred on the playground is not a good enough grounds for denying gay people the right to adopt.


----------



## Trenton

vthomeschoolmom said:


> That was what they used to say to prevent the adoption for cross race married people.


Also for inter-racial dating/marriage but that has since faded at least in the North East U.S. where I am. My husband was born in Bolivia and I'm a white mutt. No one seems to care two poops here. Go back just fifty years and it'd be a different story.

In other words, reachingshore, yes there will be a social stigma but it has to be faced in order to fade.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

VT,
There's always that "other" argument. Gay people should be denied the opportunity to adopt because they will "turn" those kids gay.


----------



## JMak00

Marriage was never needed to procreate. Marriage is not a civil contract, well, it's not only a civi contract. Marriage has only existed, until folks started using the courts to force change, to bind a man and woman together to create the most successful family unit. 

Allowing gays to "marry" necessarily and fundamentally alters marriage. It is that simple. 

So the question really is...is it necessary and appropriate to radically change marriage to accomodate same-sex couples. I don't think so. And I think doing so would corru, errr, defile marriage irreparably by eliminating the uniqueness of a hetero marriage. If marriage aint to be a man and woman then why not multiple partners, an animal, inanimate objects? I think the absurdity is obvious. Because marriage aint only about formalizing obligations nor to gain benefits conferred by the government. 



reachingshore said:


> Yes, in like 15th century, when the Church had a LOT to say about marriages and defining the concept. Today marriage is NOT needed to procreate. Today marriage is needed to formalize the union of two people, their rights and obligations to one another, all in accordance with secular law.
> 
> As far as gay couples raising children, I am undecided, leaning towards 'why not?'. Not enough Data.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

Religiously free nation? What does that mean. The freedom of religion aint a freedom from religion and it certainly does not prohibit the incorporation of religiously-inspired values into our laws. 



vthomeschoolmom said:


> Except that there is not one tiny shred of evidence to indicate that this is the case at all.
> 
> Our law is not determined christian religion or any other. Well unfortunately too often it has in the past. But this is supposed to be a religiously free nation. I don't accept the bible as a source of legislative reason.
> 
> 
> What does that mean? God is gay and straight at the same time?
> 
> 
> What do you mean discriminate? I don't know what you are referring to here.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> Marriage was never needed to procreate. Marriage is not a civil contract, well, it's not only a civi contract. Marriage has only existed, until folks started using the courts to force change, to bind a man and woman together to create the most successful family unit.


I agree that marriage was created to somehow try to perpetuate what was perceived as the most successful family unit. I postulate that that experiment failed. I further don't agree that it is even the most successful family unit. 



> Allowing gays to "marry" necessarily and fundamentally alters marriage. It is that simple.


Pretty sure I never argued with this fact.



> So the question really is...is it necessary and appropriate to radically change marriage to accomodate same-sex couples.


In a word, yes. They have the right to the same protection under law as anyone else.



> I don't think so. And I think doing so would corru, errr, defile marriage irreparably by eliminating the uniqueness of a hetero marriage.


If I could ever get a clear explanation from someone what is defiled/damaged I would die a happy woman.



> If marriage aint to be a man and woman then why not multiple partners, an animal, inanimate objects?


Ah cogent. First animals cannot enter into reasoned contracts nor can inanimate objects. But between multiple partners? I am all for it. I know some poly people whose survivorship rights would be protected if this were the case. For my money, we should get rid of civil marriage altogether and deal with parenting, survivorship and those issues each according to what any individual would like. Leave marriage to the churches.




> I think the absurdity is obvious.


Well certainly entering into a contract with someone or something that has no citizenship rights is absurd.


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> Religiously free nation? What does that mean. The freedom of religion aint a freedom from religion and it certainly does not prohibit the incorporation of religiously-inspired values into our laws.


What Constitution do you read? It sure as shooting IS freedom from enforced state religion. As far as I am concerned religiously inspired law is an ill effect of southern politicians needing to get reelected.


----------



## reachingshore

JMak00 said:


> Marriage has only existed, until folks started using the courts to force change, to bind a man and woman together to create the most successful family unit.


So you view marriage predominantly as a union in the eyes of god. I have never heard of any gay person or gay rights activist screaming for the equal right to a church wedding. So how does that 'radically' change your view on marriage? In any secular country just getting married in a religious ceremony does not equal to getting married in the eyes of the civil law (unless we are talking concordat marriages which essentially are killing two birds with one stone).


----------



## JMak00

That male/female marriage has been the most successful family unit isn't a perception, it's a fact. Incontrovertible one at that! Please describe other arrangments that have successfully perpetuated our species.

Further, how has this "experiment" failed?

As for protection under the law...huh? How does redefining marriage to permit same-sex couples to marry confer protection under the law? What protections come available that are not already available?

Marriage is man/woman. Changing that to include same-sex couples necessarily changes the definition of marriage. That's a corruption of the definition of marriage. Mariage is no longer a form of relationship to lead to procreation and child rearing. The intent of marriage is destroyed as marriage becomes simply a contractual arrengement binding two people together for the sake of being together. Marriage serves a braoder point and gay marriages fails the first test - procreation.

And you do not need marriage to gain survivorship rights. 



vthomeschoolmom said:


> I agree that marriage was created to somehow try to perpetuate what was perceived as the most successful family unit. I postulate that that experiment failed. I further don't agree that it is even the most successful family unit.
> 
> 
> Pretty sure I never argued with this fact.
> 
> 
> In a word, yes. They have the right to the same protection under law as anyone else.
> 
> 
> If I could ever get a clear explanation from someone what is defiled/damaged I would die a happy woman.
> 
> 
> Ah cogent. First animals cannot enter into reasoned contracts nor can inanimate objects. But between multiple partners? I am all for it. I know some poly people whose survivorship rights would be protected if this were the case. For my money, we should get rid of civil marriage altogether and deal with parenting, survivorship and those issues each according to what any individual would like. Leave marriage to the churches.
> 
> 
> 
> Well certainly entering into a contract with someone or something that has no citizenship rights is absurd.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## reachingshore

JMak00 said:


> Please describe other arrangments that have successfully perpetuated our species.


Cavemen did it. Left, right and center. Freestyle.


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> That male/female marriage has been the most successful family unit isn't a perception, it's a fact. Incontrovertible one at that! Please describe other arrangments that have successfully perpetuated our species.


You do know that you can have sex and procreate withgout being married, I suspect? Rearing is another matter.



> Further, how has this "experiment" failed?


I know many, many married people doing a pretty piss poor job of relationship and child rearing. I know many single and a handful of poly people who are doing a bang up job. I think one need only open one's eyes to see that marriage does not a successful family make. It takes other things. Caring, love, thoughtfulness, time, character...





> As for protection under the law...huh? How does redefining marriage to permit same-sex couples to marry confer protection under the law? What protections come available that are not already available?


Tax benefits. Survivorship rights. End of life decision rights. Medical power of attorney rights. Whatever emotive or spiritual things you may view marriage as, it is also a matter of law, as is its dissolution.



> Marriage is man/woman.


Not in my state it isn't. You may wish it were so. But repeating it doesn't make it so.


----------



## Mom6547

reachingshore said:


> Cavemen did it. Left, right and center. Freestyle.


Laughing Out Loud. :smthumbup:


----------



## Catherine602

RandomDude said:


> A woman who agrees to me paying the date -> I go, "meh, not my type"
> 
> A woman who says no and pays her share -> I go, "woot! a potential!"
> 
> A woman who says no and pays in full -> I go, "WTF is wrong with you woman? Have you no game? Stand up for yourself!"


I never paid for a first date or 2nd for that matter when I was single. if we started going out regularly then we shared the cost. I always offered to pay but if he accepted my offer, I would go out with him again. The type of man I liked was man's man who was interested enough in me to pay for the first few dates. That's the type of man I am married to now. It all depends on what you are looking for, a bitter man who wants to even the score with women because they feel emasculated my femanazis or a confident man with the principals of a gentlemen. The men who are affronted by paying for dates, either have no money, are stingy, have a calculator in their heads to innumorate your tally and what they are owed in exchange. A man who is really interested will move hevan and earth to be with a woman he really wants to be with. The tally have a preconcieved notion about what they are entitled to in a relationship in exchange for gracing a woman with his attentions.

Whether he pays in a non-resentful way says something about the man. In my subculture, men are allergic to having women pay for them, they feel like gigolos. It interesting that there so many men on this site that object to paying for a date and think it is a punishment for women embracing feminism. I wonder what feminism means to them. Do they realize that many women work now and the second salary increases the income and standard of living for many families. During the economic down turn, many women became the sole erner for the family, bridging the gap when the man was not working. Moreover, their daughters enjoy the right to persue a career if they wish. Yet men lob the feminism bomb to explain their failure in their marriages. I think it a convienent bag to place all problems a simple- minded and lazy way to salve their hurt.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

I always paid on dates. Never bothered me. Just thought that was the "way things were". I did do an 80/20 split once on an expensive international vacation with a long term gf. 

That said I remember two different women who at the end of the first date seemed interested in me, but they had killed my interest in them. In both cases I got an earful on our first and only date about how they were treated "less than" as women in certain situations. 

In both cases - at that point in time they made more than I did - and in both cases when the check came they fully expected me not only to pick it up - which of course I did - but made no comment about picking up the tip or getting the "next" date. One of these women really liked me and pursued me for a while. The other - would definitely have dated me further if I had asked. 

In both cases I thought. First date you are making a big point about how "unfair" it is that you are treated differently while blindly ignoring that in certain situations "different" is better. 

It just rubbed me the wrong way. My W of 21 years repeatedly offered to pay for stuff when we went out and I repeatedly declined. And as for the specifics of the busted dates mentioned above - the women both had valid reasons for being torqued about what was happening to them. 

Back then I was just quietly put off. If I were ever "God forbid" to have to date again I would handle it differently by asking some questions about whether they felt there were more situations where they were disadvantaged than advantaged being women. 




Catherine602 said:


> I never paid for a first date or 2nd for that matter when I was single. if we started going out regularly then we shared the cost. I always offered to pay but if he accepted my offer, I would go out with him again. The type of man I liked was man's man who was interested enough in me to pay for the first few dates. That's the type of man I am married to now. It all depends on what you are looking for, a bitter man who wants to even the score with women because they feel emasculated my femanazis or a confident man with the principals of a gentlemen. The men who are affronted by paying for dates, either have no money, are stingy, have a calculator in their heads to innumorate your tally and what they are owed in exchange. A man who is really interested will move hevan and earth to be with a woman he really wants to be with. The tally have a preconcieved notion about what they are entitled to in a relationship in exchange for gracing a woman with his attentions.
> 
> Whether he pays in a non-resentful way says something about the man. In my subculture, men are allergic to having women pay for them, they feel like gigolos. It interesting that there so many men on this site that object to paying for a date and think it is a punishment for women embracing feminism. I wonder what feminism means to them. Do they realize that many women work now and the second salary increases the income and standard of living for many families. During the economic down turn, many women became the sole erner for the family, bridging the gap when the man was not working. Moreover, their daughters enjoy the right to persue a career if they wish. Yet men lob the feminism bomb to explain their failure in their marriages. I think it a convienent bag to place all problems a simple- minded and lazy way to salve their hurt.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pandakiss

my husband says, 
why are all the gays runnig to the altar?? dont they know, only straight people have the right to be in miserable marriages...
why are they fighting to get in were fighting to get out..???


----------



## Trenton

reachingshore said:


> Cavemen did it. Left, right and center. Freestyle.


:lol:


----------



## JMak00

Who said anything about enforced state religion (whatever that is)? Why are you suggesting that I think the Constitution says state enforced religion is permissable?

Freedom of religion is the freedom to participate religiously and a prohibition against the establishment of a national church. 

Why shouldn't laws reflect values that are inspired by religion? I mean, the foundation for American jurisprudence originates from english common law which had its foundations in values and principles from the Church. 



vthomeschoolmom said:


> What Constitution do you read? It sure as shooting IS freedom from enforced state religion. As far as I am concerned religiously inspired law is an ill effect of southern politicians needing to get reelected.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

My goodness, of course you don't need to be married to procreate. The fact is though that raising children in a two-parent household is far more successful than not. There's also the sticky fact that, absent medical intervention, requires a man and woman to procreate, hence, marriage between man and woman. 

That you know bad parents is irrelevant. What is relevant is that western civilization is what it is because of man and woman marrying. Otherwise, we'd still be africa and the middle east in terms of innovation and development. 

The point is not that marriage is a prerequisite in individual instances for a happy marriage. For a civilization, a society, marriage is critical. 

Don't need to be married for survivorship rights. What tax benefit to being married? And there shouldn't be any tax benefit or penalty. End of life decisionmaking does not require marriage. 

None of those things requires marriage to exist. Our survival does. Two men and two woman do not procreate. Single parenting, while successful in specific instances, is not a preferred survival strategy. 

And marriage in your state may not be man and woman only but only because of the intervention of the courts. Gay marriage has not been enacted anyway iin the US by democratic means but only through judicial lawmaking. Perhaps you prefer having judges circumvent our democratic processes, but I don't. 



vthomeschoolmom said:


> You do know that you can have sex and procreate withgout being married, I suspect? Rearing is another matter.
> 
> 
> I know many, many married people doing a pretty piss poor job of relationship and child rearing. I know many single and a handful of poly people who are doing a bang up job. I think one need only open one's eyes to see that marriage does not a successful family make. It takes other things. Caring, love, thoughtfulness, time, character...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax benefits. Survivorship rights. End of life decision rights. Medical power of attorney rights. Whatever emotive or spiritual things you may view marriage as, it is also a matter of law, as is its dissolution.
> 
> 
> Not in my state it isn't. You may wish it were so. But repeating it doesn't make it so.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> My goodness, of course you don't need to be married to procreate. The fact is though that raising children in a two-parent household is far more successful than not.


Based on what FACTS?



> That you know bad parents is irrelevant.


No actually it is very relevant. You claim that a two parent household ( I find it interesting that you don't specify a two-parent hetero household though I assume you just misspeak) is "far more successful". I claim that that there is no evidence to support that in real terms of what I would call success for children.



> What is relevant is that western civilization is what it is because of man and woman marrying. Otherwise, we'd still be africa and the middle east in terms of innovation and development.


Well I guess I will leave you to support that ridiculous claim all on your own.



> The point is not that marriage is a prerequisite in individual instances for a happy marriage.


Marriage is a prerequisite for ... a happy marriage. No ****, Sherlock.


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> Who said anything about enforced state religion (whatever that is)? Why are you suggesting that I think the Constitution says state enforced religion is permissable?
> 
> Freedom of religion is the freedom to participate religiously and a prohibition against the establishment of a national church.
> 
> Why shouldn't laws reflect values that are inspired by religion?


Because it enforces moralism based on religion thus forcing moral participation in said religion.


----------



## Pandakiss

what does gay marriage annd gay parental rights have to do with anything?????

if you dont like gay marriage..then dont do it, see all fixed.
you dont like the idea of 2 men/women bumpin uglys, then dont sleep with some onr the same sex as you..see all fixed, you dont like it JUST DONT DO IT!!!!!!


----------



## JMak00

QED...compare western cuivilization to contemporary tribal society in Africa or the Middle East. Compare it to previous civilizations that didn't have marriage...well, they don't exist now do they? We wouldn't be here now without it at the same level of intellectual and societal development. That's cultural success, no? 

The sucess I am discussing is our civilizational development. The success of our civilization vis-à-vis others. Two parent hetero families are the most successful in rearing children. 

And you're right, I did flub that line re a happy marriage. It should have read that marriage is not a prereq for a happy family. But that's not the point. What is the point is that hetero marriage has been most successful in perpetuating our civilizational success. 

What would success look like for you? African tribes? European nomads? Or is it that individual instances of poor parenting leads you to conclude that two-parent households are failures as a family unit? That would be weird to say the least!



vthomeschoolmom said:


> Based on what FACTS?
> 
> 
> No actually it is very relevant. You claim that a two parent household ( I find it interesting that you don't specify a two-parent hetero household though I assume you just misspeak) is "far more successful". I claim that that there is no evidence to support that in real terms of what I would call success for children.
> 
> 
> Well I guess I will leave you to support that ridiculous claim all on your own.
> 
> 
> Marriage is a prerequisite for ... a happy marriage. No ****, Sherlock.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Because it enforces moralism based on religion thus forcing moral participation in said religion.


Really? Someone proposes to enact legislation that seeks to expand health insurance coverage for children via government subsidies and justifies such by appealing to a moral responsibility to provide kids with health care...and that moral obligation derived from a religious belief and you believe that is an improper exercise of government authority? Because it's inspired by a religious conviction it's an undue imposition of religion in violation of the 1st amendment...lol.

Again, freedom of religion is not a freedom from religion. Even the separation of church and state concept does reach that far...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lime

JMak00 said:


> What is relevant is that western civilization is what it is because of man and woman marrying. Otherwise, we'd still be africa and the middle east in terms of innovation and development.


:smthumbup: Exactly! If it weren't for marriage, we'd be harpooning gazelles on the Serengeti with hand chiseled javelins.

Oh, oops. I forgot that marriage actually exists in Africa and the Middle East.

Otherwise that theory would have been perfect


----------



## RandomDude

Marriage has existed in many civilisations, sedentary or nomadic. The origin itself is definitely not purely Western.



> well, they don't exist now do they? We wouldn't be here now without it at the same level of intellectual and societal development. That's cultural success, no?


Cultural success? The reality is more like genocide and ethnocide.


----------



## Trenton

I actually enjoy reading the different perspective even if I don't agree with it. It's, well, interesting...


----------



## WadeWilson

Too funny for me...
My 2 cents... Old days or new is just us defining and comparing evolution... Marriage is no exception... This institute has always been refined and redefined... As in past civilizations our childrens future will also differ from... And maybe two people who truely love each other can enter a real union regardless thier sex, race, background, worldwide and not select places.


----------



## RandomDude

It's just typical ethnocentric BS, fun to pick on however I guess xD


----------



## Catherine602

What happened to this thread I leave for a few hrs and I can't follow what's going on. There is usually some logical thread to the discussion but i cant find it. Would someone care to sum up the discussion so far so I can weigh in??
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

lime said:


> :smthumbup: Exactly! If it weren't for marriage, we'd be harpooning gazelles on the Serengeti with hand chiseled javelins.
> 
> Oh, oops. I forgot that marriage actually exists in Africa and the Middle East.
> 
> Otherwise that theory would have been perfect


I mean it COULDN'T have been the industrial revolution ... could it?


----------



## Mom6547

Catherine602 said:


> What happened to this thread I leave for a few hrs and I can't follow what's going on. There is usually some logical thread to the discussion but i cant find it. Would someone care to sum up the discussion so far so I can weigh in??
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I initiated the thread with the idea that some people, often men, have a hard time adapting to post feminist life in USA. From there feminism and same sex marriage are responsible for the corruption of marriage, increased divorce rates and the like. 

Some discussion went on about the negative effects of feminism, like the increase in divorce rates. Much agreement followed that feminism effected the divorce rate but disagreement on the net overall benefits of feminism.

Some claims were made by one poster that marriage is somehow responsible for changing western society to being more civilized and not like Africa.

Some fire fights ensued. 

How did I do?


----------



## Nekko

Have to add my own opinion on this : most women have changed and as a consequence the dynamics of marriage, divorce etc have changed as well. Most women my age are completely different from what, for instance, my mom's generation of women used to be. They knew how to cook, marriage was a priority for them. They stuck in a marriage regardless of if they were miserable (hence divorce rate lower, but is this really a good thing? Funny thing is they divorced anyway, but recently, when it wasn't so "shameful" )

For the ladies that are my friends and in my generation now, who've expressed their though on this matter, education, a career and a valuable relationship (with a man who is human and not just a guy who brings home the bacon) are more important. Most of them are clueless when it comes to cooking. Most men in my generation are good cooks for some reason...maybe they've learned to adapt. I don't know. 

We also have a saying "you get to pay for me when i'm your hooker or your wife" referring to men paying for dinners. This basically means a pretty large number of women here are offended by men who assume that they have to pay, unless they are in a relationship when they share money like a marriage. Aka : it's my pleasure to keep you company, my responsibility to pay for what i eat, don't insult me by paying and making me feel like a hooker. 

You can tell me nothing has changed all you want and that the dynamics between men and women are the same. I don't see it because i'm not living it. That doesn't mean everything has changed. Sure, some women are still more nurturing, a bit more fragile and vulnerable, they still dress up, look pretty. Most men are still more competitive, more passionate about cars and science. This still serves for attraction. But from a social standpoint we're equal. Equal but different (i don't agree with women who turn into a man, dress the same, speak the same etc). 

Equal as in the right to decide, the right to pay for dinner, the right to stay or leave, the right to love, the right to vote(!). This means men have to respect women's decisions and opinions. This also means women have to assume responsibility and be competent, not just nag and complain and say they weren't heard but do nothing when they need to. 

I completely agree that i don't fit in the old world but sometimes i feel like the new world is the exact opposite (at the other extreme). Somewhere in the middle would be better maybe?


----------



## AFEH

Ah the voice of ballance and moderation. Extremism just results in throwing the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## Mom6547

AFEH said:


> Ah the voice of ballance and moderation. Extremism just results in throwing the baby out with the bath water.


I agree. Whether it is feminism, religion, political conservatism, political liberalism....


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> It's quite amusing...your sickening arrogance. Like Brennan, you have to look down your nose at people you disagrtee with. I have to be sexist, racist, homophobic or now, your words, an uber neo-con *******. Your closed-mindedness knows no bounds and your arrogance prevents you from seeing that. Disagreement with you really is a demonstration of someone else's mental defect, right?


There are a great number of people who disagree on this board using reason and thought. I am sorry, but in your case your arguments just aren't cogent.

There have been posters here who have even changed my mind about some things I thought I knew. Fancy that. But they used actual information and reasoned thought.

Cheers to you.


----------



## Mrs.LonelyGal

Wow, this thread has really been interesting. I have enjoyed reading most of the comments here, including the ones I staunchly disagree with.

I think feminism is a double edged sword. I agree with the poster above that said something to the effect that we have hit the other end of the spectrum and that a more moderate stance would be better for everyone. 
I think that the feminist movement has finally allowed women to have equality in the home, society and the work place- and that is a good thing! Though, there have been some parts of feminism that I wish had never evolved. 

Someone mentioned ( about 17 pages back) that perhaps part of the problem w/ modern day feminism is that some of the women today have not been equipped with the sense of responsibility that go with these freedoms. I tend to agree, but only in specific cases where there have been abuses. I see some men who are ill equipped to deal with the freedom their maleness affords them, too.

I think that it will take a few generations in the new world or the post new world to get the kinks worked out, but I applaud most of the advances that feminism has afforded my generation and the generation of my younger sister.

Personally, I am all for the societal shackles of gender roles to become inconsequential.
If a woman likes to do construction and can physically handle the demands of that job then she should be able to pursue that career. If a man likes to play with make up and hair ( regardless of his sexual identity) he should be able to become a makeup artist or hairstylist w/o anyone batting an eye or thinking it is strange. I feel the same way about sharing the duties of raising children. If a woman doesn't want to be a stay at home mom and the husband does- then that should be swell. If both parents want to work and they trade off duties of tending to children then that should be acceptable too.

I consider my marriage to be a partnership. No one is dominant- no one is in charge of the other person. We handle our money and our chores this way. I am not too girly to mow the lawn and he is not too manly to scrub the toilet. I like it that way. 
And why is anyones business what is feminine or feminist in my relationship? Can we all not look at each other as human beings? As equals? Other than the physical differences- why should societies roles define us and mold our expectations of our spouse or children or societies expectations of women in the work place?

I get strange looks at work when I start doing heavy lifting and loading in gear ( "Hey! stand aside little lady- that is man's work"), but though my job is more of a supervisor and less of a manual labor role- doesn't mean I don't find it more efficient for me to pitch in, if I am able. Being a good supervisor is making sure we are running the most efficient schedule. AND- I honestly can not stand to sit around and watch other people work. I put on my work gloves and go at it- the laborers appreciate it. I have been told that they respect me more than some of my male counterparts who are content to watch other people work and just supervise. I like being hands on, and always have.

As far as gay marriage is concerned. I find it laughable that some (what seems to be really only one or 2 male posters) are so insecure in their interpretation of what marriage is or should be are threatened by the fact that two well adjusted human beings want to spend their lives together and raise children. No government, religion or law should be able to legislate the love between two consenting adults. Those adults (regardless of their respective genders) are entitled to the same rights that the institution of marriage affords everyone across the board. THIS IS A CIVIL RIGHT. If you can not or refuse to see this, then I really feel sorry for you- and I hope that no government or religion tries to take away any of your personal civil rights.

Survivors rights and power of attorney being the two biggest areas where gay couples have been denied, this is a travesty. It will be a shameful black mark in the history books, just like when we look back at slavery full of shame. One day future generations are going to look back w/ confusion that this was even ever a debate.

It saddens me that some people ( from what I can tell predominately men) are so opposed to the new way.... They have a lot of disappointment in store for them as the world continues to evolve and women are at the forefront rally for change and equality. 

I personally want to be a human who stands for the new rules and the way the world will be because of the efforts of other forward thinking humans- both feminist women and progressive thinking men. 

I am sensing a slow but steady paradigm shift going on and feminine/ masculine is evolving to mean something else and that gender roles in society will one day cease to exist, aside from their biological impediments.

I posted this thought in the Men's Clubhouse in one of the strong and independent threads and was immediately browbeaten for it. I won't be offering up any of my opinions in that forum anymore, as my views are discounted and it is like beating a dead horse. Those male posters and their old way will not change my way of thinking, though I can acknowledge and respect their views. Unfortunately, they refuse to acknowledge and respect mine.


I want to live and love in a world that all humans are given rights and freedoms regardless of their age, sex, race or sexual orientation. Where everyone can be just who they want to be and have the type of marriage that they want to have- as equals or the male being dominant or the woman being dominant, or one female is submissive and one female is dominant....- or just playing it by ear to see what works for their individual relationship.

I don't think that is liberalism or feminism- I think that it is fair.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I initiated the thread with the idea that some people, often men, have a hard time adapting to post feminist life in USA. From there feminism and same sex marriage are responsible for the corruption of marriage, increased divorce rates and the like.
> 
> Some discussion went on about the negative effects of feminism, like the increase in divorce rates. Much agreement followed that feminism effected the divorce rate but disagreement on the net overall benefits of feminism.
> 
> Some claims were made by one poster that marriage is somehow responsible for changing western society to being more civilized and not like Africa.
> 
> Some fire fights ensued.
> 
> 
> How did I do?


You summed it up perfectly, VT!


----------



## Amplexor

I've deleted a few posts that are pushing the envelope in regards to forum rules. I've been monitoring and enjoying the discussion/debate but please keep it friendly. No warnings or bans were issued. Thanks.










Ceiling cat is watching you debate!


----------



## sisters359

OH, NO, IT's BIG BROTHER! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!! 

I didn't know you were a moderator, Amp. Good to "see" you again!


----------



## Amplexor

sisters359 said:


> Good to "see" you again!



I've been away at moderators' school.


----------



## Catherine602

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I initiated the thread with the idea that some people, often men, have a hard time adapting to post feminist life in USA. From there feminism and same sex marriage are responsible for the corruption of marriage, increased divorce rates and the like.
> 
> Some discussion went on about the negative effects of feminism, like the increase in divorce rates. Much agreement followed that feminism effected the divorce rate but disagreement on the net overall benefits of feminism.
> 
> Some claims were made by one poster that marriage is somehow responsible for changing western society to being more civilized and not like Africa.
> 
> Some fire fights ensued.
> 
> How did I do?


Thanks excellent summary - this is one of the top most interesting threads that I have read in a long time, thanks for starting the discussion. :smthumbup:


----------



## JMak00

Mrs.LonelyGal said:


> As far as gay marriage is concerned. I find it laughable that some (what seems to be really only one or 2 male posters) are so insecure in their interpretation of what marriage is or should be are threatened by the fact that two well adjusted human beings want to spend their lives together and raise children.


Again, why is it that there can be no legitimate disagreement with certain people? Why can't some people accept that there is a reasonable basis to disagree with them? Now I'm insecure because I oppose gay marriage. Really? This is absurd. In fact, it's not even an argument, it's a personal attack that shouldn't be part of the convo here. 



> No government, religion or law should be able to legislate the love between two consenting adults. Those adults (regardless of their respective genders) are entitled to the same rights that the institution of marriage affords everyone across the board. THIS IS A CIVIL RIGHT. If you can not or refuse to see this, then I really feel sorry for you- and I hope that no government or religion tries to take away any of your personal civil rights.


Huh...we have the courts legislating marriage for same-sex couples, but that's acceptable because??

Also, the institution of marriage does not confer rights. In fact, the government doesn't confer rights notwithstanding that some people demand the courts legislate their social preferences into law in completely undemocratic ways. 

You can arbitrarily assert that marriage is a civil right. Arbitrary statements of supposed facts are worthless as they are not arguments. They are opinions. That you feel sorry that I don't agree with your opinion, well, that's irrelevant. Do you have an argument establishing that marriage is a civil right?



> Survivor rights and power of attorney being the two biggest areas where gay couples have been denied, this is a travesty. It will be a shameful black mark in the history books, just like when we look back at slavery full of shame. One day future generations are going to look back w/ confusion that this was even ever a debate.


Gay couples are not denied either. No one can be denied either. I can designate anyone I want to act on my behalf should I become incapacitated or unable to act for myself. You do not need to be married to exercise this. The law has eastablished that married spouses will be recognized as possessing both without the individual explicitly doing so. But that does not mean an individual right now can't designate power of attorney or eatate executor or etc. 



> It saddens me that some people ( from what I can tell predominately men) are so opposed to the new way.... They have a lot of disappointment in store for them as the world continues to evolve and women are at the forefront rally for change and equality.


What is this supposed "new way"? No one has adequately established this. And that you feel saddened by this supposed opposition is quite arrogant. 

I hope this post is not deleted. Posters should be allowed to call out others when they start personally attacking those they disagree with. 

I didn't appreciate being labelled a sexist homophobe simply because that poster disagreed with me. I wonder if those posts were deleted??
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

I recall asking what this "new world" "post-feminist" world looked like and don't think I ever saw a response. What are the characteristics of this new world that set it apart?

How do we know that men are having difficulty adapting?



vthomeschoolmom said:


> I initiated the thread with the idea that some people, often men, have a hard time adapting to post feminist life in USA. From there feminism and same sex marriage are responsible for the corruption of marriage, increased divorce rates and the like.
> 
> Some discussion went on about the negative effects of feminism, like the increase in divorce rates. Much agreement followed that feminism effected the divorce rate but disagreement on the net overall benefits of feminism.
> 
> Some claims were made by one poster that marriage is somehow responsible for changing western society to being more civilized and not like Africa.
> 
> Some fire fights ensued.
> 
> How did I do?


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## reachingshore

JMako00 said:


> Do you have an argument establishing that marriage is a civil right?


Having a _choice/option_ to get married is a civil right. Simply that, _having a choice._


----------



## JMak00

reachingshore said:


> Having a _choice/option_ to get married is a civil right. Simply that, _having a choice._


Is the choice/option to get my hair cut a civil right? Of course not. Rights are not derived from a determination of whether there's a choice or an option present. 

Gay marriage supporters seek the invention of a fundamental right. And their tactic is to reshape culture by stigmatizing disagreement with their social goal as a form of bigotry. Because, of course, if marriage is a civil right, then opposition to gay marriage must be bigotry. 

So, I'll concede that there is a right to marriage, if you're a man and woman. Anyone can get married so long as it's one man and one woman. There is no other definition of marriage. 

Simply asserting the existence of a right doesn't establish the right to anything.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## reachingshore

JMak00 said:


> Is the choice/option to get my hair cut a civil right? Of course not. Rights are not derived from a determination of whether there's a choice or an option present.


Oh, come on.. you are splitting hairs here 

Just you wait. When someone takes away YOUR right to something you feel is fundamentally yours, then we will see what you say.



> So, I'll concede that there is a right to marriage, if you're a man and woman. Anyone can get married so long as it's one man and one woman. There is no other definition of marriage.


Again, I conclude your definition of marriage is a union in the eyes of god. Instead of saying "marriage", would using the word "union" make you feel more comfortable?


----------



## reachingshore

Ok, how about this?

According to you marriage is something for two people who can (are able) and potentially would procreate, right?

How about a man and a woman who want to get married and mutually agree they will NOT procreate. Would you deny them the right for their union?


----------



## Mrs.LonelyGal

JMak00 said:


> Again, why is it that there can be no legitimate disagreement with certain people? Why can't some people accept that there is a reasonable basis to disagree with them? Now I'm insecure because I oppose gay marriage. Really? This is absurd. In fact, it's not even an argument, it's a personal attack that shouldn't be part of the convo here.


It seems that not only you and I, but several posters in this thread are having a "legitimate disagreement"- so we disagree. No real surprise there.

I didn't call you specifically insecure, but now that you want to continue the dialogue after establishing the fact the you and I do not agree, I'll engage you.

You oppose gay marriage because you are of the opinion that if two homosexuals are allowed to join in matrimony and have all the rights that go along with it- then it will somehow break down the institutional norms that have been in place for centuries (ya know- the good' old ways).
From what I can tell you also feel that marriage as an entire institution is in danger because these gay people want the same rights it affords straight folk. The marriage of future generations is threatened! The nuclear family will somehow cease to exist- heaven's to betsy!

I guess I could go back and find your direct quotes on the matter, but frankly, I don't think it is worth it. It really all does come of as extremely insecure, in my opinion.




JMak00 said:


> Huh...we have the courts legislating marriage for same-sex couples, but that's acceptable because??
> 
> Also, the institution of marriage does not confer rights. In fact, the government doesn't confer rights notwithstanding that some people demand the courts legislate their social preferences into law in completely undemocratic ways.
> 
> You can arbitrarily assert that marriage is a civil right. Arbitrary statements of supposed facts are worthless as they are not arguments. They are opinions. That you feel sorry that I don't agree with your opinion, well, that's irrelevant. Do you have an argument establishing that marriage is a civil right?


You are correct, it might be an arbitrary statement made by one flakey, liberal chick on a message board about marriage. 

The right for consenting adults to join legally, financially and spiritually in a mutually agreeable binding contract might not be widely considered a civil right in all places in the world today, but only time will tell how long it will remain uncounted.

Are all men created equal?!

Once upon a time, there were _a few_ people who thought that women should have the right to vote- some even _arbitrarily_ called it a civil right! A few more idealistic folks thought that men, regardless of color, should be allowed to own property and gain citizenship. I think that ended out turning around for them, too.... The very first settlers in the US came here seeking religious sanctuary- in search of a place that they could worship their chosen higher power in the way they saw fit. 

Eventually- democratically and fundamentally- these truths that were_ civil rights all along_ became the accepted truths and widely recognized as civil rights when at one point in time in history they weren't. 




JMak00 said:


> Gay couples are not denied either. No one can be denied either. I can designate anyone I want to act on my behalf should I become incapacitated or unable to act for myself. You do not need to be married to exercise this. The law has eastablished that married spouses will be recognized as possessing both without the individual explicitly doing so. But that does not mean an individual right now can't designate power of attorney or eatate executor or etc.



Here are just a few of the civil rights that heterosexual couples are afforded and not gay couples- as long as the gays are "unmarried" in the eyes of the law.

*Same-sex couples do not have the right to make decisions on a partner’s behalf in a medical emergency. 
*While all workers pay into the Social Security system for survivor benefits, gay and lesbian Americans are not eligible to receive these survivor benefits because their relationships are not legally recognized. 
*All same-sex families are denied more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage, and in 47 out of 50 states, they are denied most of the state rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. 
*Children of same-sex parents are denied survivor benefits if the deceased parent was not the biological parent or was unable to obtain a second-parent adoption. 
*In lesbian or gay partnerships where one partner is a legal parent of a child, the other partner has no legal right or ability to protect or care for the child in the event of the legal parent’s death or absence. This affects issues such as custody, survivor benefits and hospital visitation. 
*Half of all states have failed to provide adequate legal protections to its GLBT citizens from violence based on their sexual orientation. 




JMak00 said:


> What is this supposed "new way"? No one has adequately established this. And that you feel saddened by this supposed opposition is quite arrogant.
> 
> I hope this post is not deleted. Posters should be allowed to call out others when they start personally attacking those they disagree with.
> 
> I didn't appreciate being labelled a sexist homophobe simply because that poster disagreed with me. I wonder if those posts were deleted??
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



The new way is a world where women and gays (and just about everyone who isn't an old white dude) get the some say in how this world is run.
I feel more saddened that no matter what I or anyone else says to you will never change your mind. 
I was not the one who called you a sexist or a homophobe, but frankly the more you rail against gays having the right to marry and how much better straight marriage was back in the good old days when women were considered and treated like property, kinda makes you sound _just a wee_ bit sexist and homophobic.

Now, the "insincere comment" in my previous post was really not specifically directed at you. It was intended to be more of a personal observation of mine- that if a person feels so incredibly threatened by gay marriage and is against gay people falling in love and having the same legal rights as straight marriages, that there _is normally some underlying insecurity there._

I think my opinion is progressive and fair, if that makes me arrogant- so be it. I can respectfully disagree with you w/o it being a personal attack.


----------



## JMak00

No, according to our history, marriage is intended to promote child birth and child rearing. That a man and woman would choose not to procreate doesn't affect the role of marriage. Same-sex couples fundamentally alter the definition of marriage. 

Nonetheless, you still haven't established a basis for this alleged right to marriage. Where does this right originate? 

You have to establish a fact before you claim a fact exists. 

I'm always amazed by gay marriage supporters and their ignorance of thousnds of years of marriage being man and woman. It's history is simply ignored and then it is righteously asserted that marriage can be anything we simply deem it to be. Sorry, but you cannot simply ignore the history and origin of marriage to claim a new right and condemn those who oppose as bigots...



reachingshore said:


> Ok, how about this?
> 
> According to you marriage is something for two people who can (are able) and potentially would procreate, right?
> 
> How about a man and a woman who want to get married and mutually agree they will NOT procreate. Would you deny them the right for their union?


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mrs.LonelyGal

JMak00 said:


> No, according to our history, marriage is intended to promote child birth and child rearing. That a man and woman would choose not to procreate doesn't affect the role of marriage. Same-sex couples fundamentally alter the definition of marriage.
> 
> Nonetheless, you still haven't established a basis for this alleged right to marriage. Where does this right originate?
> 
> You have to establish a fact before you claim a fact exists.
> 
> I'm always amazed by gay marriage supporters and their ignorance of thousnds of years of marriage being man and woman. It's history is simply ignored and then it is righteously asserted that marriage can be anything we simply deem it to be. Sorry, but you cannot simply ignore the history and origin of marriage to claim a new right and condemn those who oppose as bigots...


Wake up man, the role of marriage has been evolving since it's first inception throughout many cultures. 

Many people hold the view that regardless of how people enter into matrimony, marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. That concept of marriage hasn't changed through the ages.

Two married women could still procreate, by the way.


----------



## JMak00

LonelyGal, I just have to ask, why do you think I am insecure? What about being opposed to the fundamental redefinition of marriage suggests that I'm insecure?

You're not addressing my point. I am for protecting the institution of marriage as a man and woman. That is marriage. Gay marriage supporters advocate fundamentally alter that. Some argue that it's a matter of a civil right but cannot establish such a right exists (youy try via analogy to women's suffrage which is not an argument at all). Others argue that gays should be permitted to marry to become eligible for benefits otherwise not available. Well, change the laws to make them eligible. Why must marriage change to accomodate relationships never intended to be called a "marriage"?

And then many folks act like we're crazy for defending marriage when it's gay marriage supporters demanding that thousands of years of an institution change for a benefits grab. It's outrageous. Comparing gay marriage to the fight for racial equality is equally outrageous as it totally minimizes the real struggle blacks faced. 

There is no civil right to marriage, period. Like abortion, such a right has to be invented. That's why we have courts imposing this on us rather than via democratic means. The people don't want it because we recognize it totally changes a pillar of western civilization. But that should be damned so some folks can grab benefits that they otherwise are excluded from by law or could gain simply by executing a few simple legal forms.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Jmak,
Would you vote "for" legislation that provided gay/lesbian folks the exact same "legal status" as marriage, provided it was defined as a "civil union" or some other term that is different than the word "marriage"?

If you oppose such legislation why? Because it seems to me that simply looking at the social security survivor benefits is an example of a "tax" on gay/lesbian folks. Meaning if you have a pool of 4 people consisting of 2 hetero married couples and a second pool of 4 people consisting of 2 males in a union and 2 females in a union, the former pool gets a type of "insurance" benefit from SS that the latter pool is denied. And that truly is a "tax" based purely on sexual orientation. 




JMak00 said:


> No, according to our history, marriage is intended to promote child birth and child rearing. That a man and woman would choose not to procreate doesn't affect the role of marriage. Same-sex couples fundamentally alter the definition of marriage.
> 
> Nonetheless, you still haven't established a basis for this alleged right to marriage. Where does this right originate?
> 
> You have to establish a fact before you claim a fact exists.
> 
> I'm always amazed by gay marriage supporters and their ignorance of thousnds of years of marriage being man and woman. It's history is simply ignored and then it is righteously asserted that marriage can be anything we simply deem it to be. Sorry, but you cannot simply ignore the history and origin of marriage to claim a new right and condemn those who oppose as bigots...
> 
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

Now here's a unique argument...simply wake up and you'll see the light! LOL!

The role of marriage may have evolved, but what constitutes a marriage has not except via unelected judges imposing their will and preferences. Maybe you're cool with that, but I'm not. 

Can anyone present an argument that doesn't rely on an appeal to emotion (poor same sex couples can't hget the bennies like married folks), calling opponents mental rejects or bigots?



Mrs.LonelyGal said:


> Wake up man, the role of marriage has been evolving since it's first inception throughout many cultures.
> 
> Many people hold the view that regardless of how people enter into matrimony, marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. That concept of marriage hasn't changed through the ages.
> 
> Two married women could still procreate, by the way.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## reachingshore

JMak00 said:


> No, according to our history, marriage is intended to promote child birth and child rearing. That a man and woman would choose not to procreate doesn't affect the role of marriage. Same-sex couples fundamentally alter the definition of marriage.
> 
> Nonetheless, you still haven't established a basis for this alleged right to marriage. Where does this right originate?
> 
> You have to establish a fact before you claim a fact exists.


Hmm.. people should have a right (and freedom) to choose. For example.. personally I wouldn't have an abortion, but I still WANT that CHOICE. Subtle difference, I know.



> I'm always amazed by gay marriage supporters and their ignorance of thousnds of years of marriage being man and woman. It's history is simply ignored and then it is righteously asserted that marriage can be anything we simply deem it to be. Sorry, but you cannot simply ignore the history and origin of marriage to claim a new right and condemn those who oppose as bigots...


Look.. historically speaking, to our knowledge (no records what was going on in cavemen time), marriage was a concept perpetuated and enforced by church/religion and economics.

Did you know that for a king of Spain, in order to get married to a queen of, say, Portugal, he needed to apply for a "special dispensation" to the Pope. Aside from the fact that European nobility was totally a bunch of inbreds (totally unknown concept at the time, wouldn't you say?), the Pope then was simply exercising his power/power of the Church in order to have a say in the balance of power in Europe (while quite possibly receiving monetary "compensatory" "thanks").

I am not ignoring anything historical. We don't live in a world where religion still has a major say in our daily lives. You want that back? I am sorry, you were born in a wrong century.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Mrs. Lonely,
I was the person who called this person sexist and a homophobe.
The way I see it, if two people want to spend their lives together and have the right to make it legal, protect one another and as an added benefit for medical, insurance, POA, MPOA and all other reasons, then why the HELL shouldn't they be able to? 
I live in a state where if you are gay, your partner has zero rights as their "next of kin". So if you were together for say 20 years, your parents actually are considered "next of kin" if they are alive, because the two of you are not married. Catch 22 to say the VERY least. It doesn't matter if these parents tossed you out because you were gay, they get the entire say in what happens to you, pulling the plug, all finances and what not. Your loving partner has no rights whatsoever. Insurance companies do not recognize policies where a gay partner was the beneficiary. Courts here have overturned life insurance policies that specifically left the money to their partner. Nope, money goes to Mom and Dad, next of kin. Disgusting.
Seriously? What two women do behind closed doors is the downfall of my marriage? What two men do behind closed doors will create the destruction of my marriage, 17 years married, 19 years dating and 30 years knowing each other. Really? 
Marriage is so sacred in this country? Really? 50% divorce rate and infidelity is nearing 65%. 
Good golly, let's not let "the gays" marry, they will certainly cause the downfall of "traditional" marriage.


----------



## michzz

JMak00 said:


> The role of marriage may have evolved, but what constitutes a marriage has not except via unelected judges imposing their will and preferences.


Cite your sources for this statement.


----------



## reachingshore

JMak00 said:


> No, according to our history, marriage is intended to promote child birth and child rearing. That a man and woman would choose not to procreate doesn't affect the role of marriage. Same-sex couples fundamentally alter the definition of marriage.


"According to our history" is a wrong statement. It should say "according to our _religion_". I am assuming you are Christian.

And according to our religion God says that a man and a woman have an _obligation_ to procreate. So according to our religion if "a man and a woman would choose not to procreate", it WOULD affect the role of marriage, thus fundamentally altering the said definition of marriage.

Make up your mind.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

reachingshore said:


> "According to our history" is a wrong statement. It should say "according to our _religion_". I am assuming you are Christian.
> 
> And according to our religion God says that a man and a woman have an _obligation_ to procreate. So according to our religion if "a man and a woman would choose not to procreate", it WOULD affect the role of marriage, thus fundamentally altering the said definition of marriage.
> 
> Make up your mind.


See, now you are talking logic. By his/her definition anybody who is married and doesn't have children is altering God's will.


----------



## reachingshore

Brennan said:


> I had a child without being married and I am a Christian


Oh boy.. maybe that was an immaculate conception then! :rofl:


----------



## lime

JMak00 said:


> I'm always amazed by gay marriage supporters and their ignorance of thousnds of years of marriage being man and woman. It's history is simply ignored and then it is righteously asserted that marriage can be anything we simply deem it to be. Sorry, but you cannot simply ignore the history and origin of marriage to claim a new right and condemn those who oppose as bigots...


I'm amazed that you are ignorant of the thousands of years that existed in human history before marriage came around. Because of that history, should we abolish all marriage? Or are you going to say that, since marriage existed, our society has advanced and it's because of marriage?

If it's the second option, then marriage at one point or another changed the status quo. It could be argued that, following the same historical logic, changing the status quo yet again by allowing gay couples to marry, society will be advanced even further. Can you see the flaw in this argument? 

However, if you believe that humankind originated in the Garden of Eden rather than through evolution, you're still kind of stuck. Adam and Eve never "got married." I did find this interesting article though that talks about how they didn't need to since God endorsed their relationship (Were Adam and Eve married? | The REAP Team). How do you know that God isn't endorsing homosexual marriage right this very second? What if all of the people like you who are trying to bring them down are just holy tests that they must overcome?

If it's all based on religion, it's all subjective, and none of us can no the right answer.

If it's based on logic, sorry but you're wrong. 

I'm all for separation of church and state, and I don't think the government should be able to legalize religious marriages for gay couples. It's immoral and against the Constitution to force a church to comply with a government rule like that. However, there is no reason why gay couples should not be able to have legal marriages; it's also against the Constitution for a church to force religious rules on everyone. "The government is based on Christian principles" is such an annoying "argument." It does not logically follow that the government should be _governed_ by Christian principles. We are not a theocracy.


----------



## reachingshore

Hah, in my country I cannot be a godmother because according to the Church, since I didn't have a church wedding, I have been living in sin. 

And I actually understand the reasoning behind me being unacceptable as a godmother.

I haven't been to a confession in years. Talk about one sheep lost! LOL


----------



## michzz

Hey, there was a Greek saint in the 4th century, John Chrysostom, who made a list of when you can't have marital sexual intercourse. Is this still true?

When one's wife is menstruating, pregnant, or nursing
During Lent, Advent, Whitsun Week, or Easter week
On feast days, fast days, Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday
During daylight
If you are naked
If you are in church
Unless you are trying to produce a child

BTW, anyone know when Whitsun Week occurs?


----------



## reachingshore

michzz said:


> Hey, there was a Greek saint in the 4th century, John Chrysostom, who made a list of when you can't have marital sexual intercourse. Is this still true?
> 
> When one's wife is menstruating, pregnant, or nursing
> During Lent, Advent, Whitsun Week, or Easter week
> On feast days, fast days, Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday
> During daylight
> If you are naked
> If you are in church
> Unless you are trying to produce a child


Isn't that what Islamic still follow to a T?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

reachingshore said:


> Hah, in my country I cannot be a godmother because according to the Church, since I didn't have a church wedding, I have been living in sin.
> 
> And I actually understand the reasoning behind me being unacceptable as a godmother.
> 
> I haven't been to a confession in years. Talk about one sheep lost! LOL


What I have witnessed is the people who scream the loudest and bang the drum the hardest are the least Christian people on Earth. EVER.


----------



## michzz

I think they add in that you can't do it while one is whirling like a dervish.


----------



## reachingshore

michzz said:


> I think they add in that you can't do it while one is whirling like a dervish.


Haha! 

Point is, we evolve (or we _should_)

One thing I like about Bahá'í Faith. According to the religion:



Wikipedia said:


> God periodically reveals his will through divine messengers, whose purpose is to transform the character of humankind and develop, within those who respond, moral and spiritual qualities. Religion is thus seen as orderly, unified, and progressive from age to age.


AND



Wikipedia said:


> In the Bahá'í Faith, religious history is seen to have unfolded through a series of divine messengers, each of whom established a religion that was suited to the needs of the time and the capacity of the people. These messengers have included Abraham, the Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad and others, and most recently the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh. In Bahá'í belief, each consecutive messenger prophesied of messengers to follow, and Bahá'u'lláh's life and teachings fulfilled the end-time promises of previous scriptures. Humanity is understood to be in a process of collective evolution, and the need of the present time is for the gradual establishment of peace, justice and unity on a global scale.


----------



## major misfit

"The Origins of Marriage

Marriage dates back several thousand years, emerging as a* civil arrangement* at the same time as the emergence of private property. _Far from fulfilling any religious purpose to unite one man and one woman_, anthropologists theorize that most primitive marriages were polygamous. Marriages were entered into in order to expand the land or material goods base of a clan, either through the receipt of a dowry or the merger of two clans' assets. Religious guidelines around marriage are not thought to have developed until the practice was several hundred years old, and were first used as a means of preventing different religious groups from losing wealthy followers by restricting them from marrying into other religions. 

In Western Europe, it was not until the Middle Ages that marriage in churches began to occur. However, church marriages were not the norm until the 17th century, and then only for the nobility. Marriage was also used as a tool to unite different royal families' bloodlines, creating alliances that were instrumental in enabling the European monarchies to colonize the globe." (all emphasis are mine)

This is something I saved from a search a long time ago. I don't see how allowing same sex couples to marry takes anything away from "marriage" as it was originally intended. Seems to me it has mostly been about property and "rights" anyway. Good grief. I guess since I choose to not marry my partner (we're a heterosexual couple, btw) that means I'm living in sin and going straight to hell. No wonder I left the church.


----------



## JMak00

MEM11363 said:


> Jmak,
> Would you vote "for" legislation that provided gay/lesbian folks the exact same "legal status" as marriage, provided it was defined as a "civil union" or some other term that is different than the word "marriage"?


No because such legislation would not adequately satisfy what is, at its most basic level, a benefits grab. Same-sex couples, just like heteros, do not need state recognition of their union so as to formalize their relationship. Same-sex couples want the status that marriage confers so as to be eligible for federal- and state-mandated bennies/privileges. It always boils down to the bennies that hetero marriages are eligible for. I say, instead of changing marriage, change the laws to make same-sex couples eligible. Ahhh, but there's the rub. The people won't go for that. Sure, some Democratic cities and liberal college campuses enact domestic partner laws, but by and large, the people won't go for it. So, the effort is to change marriage via the courts. And the schtick is to call marriage a civil right so that anyone opposed to gay marriage can be branded a bigot.



> If you oppose such legislation why? Because it seems to me that simply looking at the social security survivor benefits is an example of a "tax" on gay/lesbian folks. Meaning if you have a pool of 4 people consisting of 2 hetero married couples and a second pool of 4 people consisting of 2 males in a union and 2 females in a union, the former pool gets a type of "insurance" benefit from SS that the latter pool is denied. And that truly is a "tax" based purely on sexual orientation.


No, it's not a tax on secual orientation. The payroll tax is a tax on income, someone's labor. The eligibility for survivor or sousal benefit is based on marriage. Change social security, don't change marriage.


----------



## JMak00

reachingshore said:


> Hmm.. people should have a right (and freedom) to choose. For example.. personally I wouldn't have an abortion, but I still WANT that CHOICE. Subtle difference, I know.


Should? What, start inventing rights out of thin air? What the heck is the freedom of choice? and from where does such a right come from?



> I am not ignoring anything historical. We don't live in a world where religion still has a major say in our daily lives. You want that back? I am sorry, you were born in a wrong century.


Yes you are. You're ignoring why marriage has existed. It has existed to provide a family struture within which to birth and rear children. we know of no other culture that has survived without a reasonably functioning system of marriage. Maybe stray reproduction and immigration can sustain us in the long haul...most unlikely, though. 

We have seen already what happens when the mother-father structure fails...just look at the 70%+ illegitimacy rate among blacks. It's resulted in government replacing the father via welfare programs. We've watched as marriage has declined in Europe (paralleling the rise of secularism there), so has the birth rate and the UN is now warning of depopulation throughout Europe.

Gay marriage undermines the universal institution of marriage by saying that marriage is not at all about birthing and raising babies or giving children mothers and fathers.


----------



## JMak00

Brennan said:


> Mrs. Lonely,
> I was the person who called this person sexist and a homophobe.


Were your posts personally attacking me deleted?



> The way I see it, if two people want to spend their lives together and have the right to make it legal, protect one another and as an added benefit for medical, insurance, POA, MPOA and all other reasons, then why the HELL shouldn't they be able to?


Well, don't you knida have to establish such a legal right first? 



> I live in a state where if you are gay, your partner has zero rights as their "next of kin". So if you were together for say 20 years, your parents actually are considered "next of kin" if they are alive, because the two of you are not married. Catch 22 to say the VERY least. It doesn't matter if these parents tossed you out because you were gay, they get the entire say in what happens to you, pulling the plug, all finances and what not. Your loving partner has no rights whatsoever.


Change the law in your state, don't change marriage.



> Insurance companies do not recognize policies where a gay partner was the beneficiary. Courts here have overturned life insurance policies that specifically left the money to their partner. Nope, money goes to Mom and Dad, next of kin. Disgusting.


Regulate insurance differently.



> Seriously? What two women do behind closed doors is the downfall of my marriage?



Of course not, but, again, no one is arguing that it is. But you can continue playing this charade. Don't fool yourself, it is a charade.



> What two men do behind closed doors will create the destruction of my marriage, 17 years married, 19 years dating and 30 years knowing each other. Really?


Why are you playing this game?



> Marriage is so sacred in this country? Really? 50% divorce rate and infidelity is nearing 65%.


Rhetorcial games are not an argument. The pro-marriage argument is that gay marriage will undermine the central reason for marriage - providing mothers and fathers to children and raising children. Gay marriage undermines that by saying that marriage is merely a contract to gain benefits or recognition. You don't need to redefine marriage to gain such benefits/recognition.



> Good golly, let's not let "the gays" marry, they will certainly cause the downfall of "traditional" marriage.


Nort the downfall, it just eliminates the central concept of marriage. Why do you refuse to acknowledge why marriage exists?


----------



## JMak00

major misfit said:


> This is something I saved from a search a long time ago. I don't see how allowing same sex couples to marry takes anything away from "marriage" as it was originally intended. Seems to me it has mostly been about property and "rights" anyway. Good grief. I guess since I choose to not marry my partner (we're a heterosexual couple, btw) that means I'm living in sin and going straight to hell. No wonder I left the church.


Marriage has changed over time, no question, however, it's always been about a man and woman. 

Gay marriage is not a natural nor logical extension of the evolution you habe acknowledged above.

Funny, that you, too, reduce your argument to a rhetorical device...


----------



## JMak00

michzz said:


> Cite your sources for this statement.


Huh? Isn't this QED?

While the role of marriage has evolved (from something about expanding land ownership to insulating wealthy religious families from intermarrying in other religions to ...), the central tenet has always been one man and one woman. Always. That has not evolved.

What sources do you require?


----------



## JMak00

reachingshore said:


> "According to our history" is a wrong statement. It should say "according to our _religion_". I am assuming you are Christian.
> 
> And according to our religion God says that a man and a woman have an _obligation_ to procreate. So according to our religion if "a man and a woman would choose not to procreate", it WOULD affect the role of marriage, thus fundamentally altering the said definition of marriage.
> 
> Make up your mind.


Nice assumption.

But when I say our history I am meaning western civilization which has roots back to ancient cultures (Roman, Hebrew) but also shaped by religion (as this is a foundational element to the advance of western civilization) as well as the Industrial Revolution.

You can play this game that marriage is merely a religious frame compelling people to procreate, but I won't.


----------



## reachingshore

JMak00 said:


> Should? What, start inventing rights out of thin air? What the heck is the freedom of choice? and from where does such a right come from?


Apparently yes. YOUR constitution. 9th Amendment: Just because a right is not specifically listed in the Constitution, does not mean that right should not be respected. Combine that with 1st Amendment: freedom to petition the government to remedy ("redress") grievances. Guess what? Gay people have grievances.





> Yes you are. You're ignoring why marriage has existed. It has existed to provide a family struture within which to birth and rear children. we know of no other culture that has survived without a reasonably functioning system of marriage. Maybe stray reproduction and immigration can sustain us in the long haul...most unlikely, though.
> 
> We have seen already what happens when the mother-father structure fails...just look at the 70%+ illegitimacy rate among blacks. It's resulted in government replacing the father via welfare programs. We've watched as marriage has declined in Europe (paralleling the rise of secularism there), so has the birth rate and the UN is now warning of depopulation throughout Europe.


**eagerly awaiting your reply to my other post here**


----------



## reachingshore

JMak00 said:


> Nice assumption.
> 
> But when I say our history I am meaning western civilization which has roots back to ancient cultures (Roman, Hebrew) but also shaped by religion (as this is a foundational element to the advance of western civilization) as well as the Industrial Revolution.
> 
> You can play this game that marriage is merely a religious frame compelling people to procreate, but I won't.


I am not. You are. It's what the Good Book says.


----------



## JMak00

Brennan said:


> See, now you are talking logic. By his/her definition anybody who is married and doesn't have children is altering God's will. Funny, I had a child without being married and I am a Christian, not the check writing/bible thumping idiots who purport to be of faith. I live my life by example.
> That pesky little thing, in that Book you often turn to that says "Only God can judge" or even better "All beings are created in the likeness of God". Apparently "the Gays" slipped God's mind. Funny how that works.


What's funny is how easily you misrepresent comments posted by others.

Nothing I said is an appeal to religion or to the rhetorical nonsense you're citing as religious doctrine (e.g., anybody who is married and doesn't have children is altering God's will). 

Please address the actual words people post.


----------



## JMak00

reachingshore said:


> Apparently yes. YOUR constitution. 9th Amendment: Just because a right is not specifically listed in the Constitution, does not mean that right should not be respected. Combine that with 1st Amendment: freedom to petition the government to remedy ("redress") grievances. Guess what? Gay people have grievances.


Wha-wha-what?

Is that what the 9th Amendment means? That judges can simply invent rights? That's an unusual reading of the Constitution.


----------



## JMak00

reachingshore said:


> I am not. You are. It's what the Good Book says.


Cute, but I am not appealing to the Bible and my comments do not rely on scripture. You wanna talk about the Bible, well, that'll be a lonely convo.


----------



## JMak00

lime said:


> I'm amazed that you are ignorant of the thousands of years that existed in human history before marriage came around. Because of that history, should we abolish all marriage? Or are you going to say that, since marriage existed, our society has advanced and it's because of marriage?


Please enlighten me on the history of marriage. 



> If it's the second option, then marriage at one point or another changed the status quo. It could be argued that, following the same historical logic, changing the status quo yet again by allowing gay couples to marry, society will be advanced even further. Can you see the flaw in this argument?


Not an argument I am making.



> However, if you believe that humankind originated in the Garden of Eden rather than through evolution, you're still kind of stuck. Adam and Eve never "got married." I did find this interesting article though that talks about how they didn't need to since God endorsed their relationship (Were Adam and Eve married? | The REAP Team). How do you know that God isn't endorsing homosexual marriage right this very second? What if all of the people like you who are trying to bring them down are just holy tests that they must overcome?


Who are you arguing with?



> If it's all based on religion, it's all subjective, and none of us can no the right answer.


It's not based on religion. Funny how you guys won't deal with my actual comments, but are compelled to attribute religous fervor to me.



> If it's based on logic, sorry but you're wrong.


Well, show me the ill-logic.



> I'm all for separation of church and state, and I don't think the government should be able to legalize religious marriages for gay couples.[/quote
> 
> Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's immoral and against the Constitution to force a church to comply with a government rule like that. However, there is no reason why gay couples should not be able to have legal marriages; it's also against the Constitution for a church to force religious rules on everyone. "The government is based on Christian principles" is such an annoying "argument." It does not logically follow that the government should be _governed_ by Christian principles. We are not a theocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> So now you wanna argue about theocracy? :sleeping:
Click to expand...


----------



## JMak00

Brennan said:


> So shocking! A baby that was born out of "wedlock" and we married in the church we met in when we were 9 years old. His Grandfather was a Cardinal in the Lutheran church and yet he didn't toss us out on our butts and call us sinners? He married us anyways. Amazing, right?
> Funny how that happens.


And you once again demonstrate that you're a bad faith poster.

Why do you treat marriage so cavalierly? Perhaps this is why you see nothing wrong with fundamentally changing the institution of marriage and believe anyone opposed to that must be a bigot or mentally defective.


----------



## Nekko

JMak00 said:


> Marriage has changed over time, no question, however, it's always been about a man and woman.
> 
> Gay marriage is not a natural nor logical extension of the evolution you habe acknowledged above.
> 
> Funny, that you, too, reduce your argument to a rhetorical device...


And women weren't allowed to get an education and some people were slaves, and gay people until not so long ago were forced to hide their orientation their whole lives and marry an opposite-gender person with which they were miserable. These were all "normal parts of life" at one point in time. It was normal for people to see some other races of people as inferior, or the other gender, or other sexual orientations, or other beliefs, religions..etc....



Marriage has always been about a man and a woman because in my view marriage was created by men with a pretty obvious purpose. A strong, wealthy man is more than enough to impregnate, support and keep a dozen of women or much more (depending on circumstances). This is a fact of life. 

Some men, in this particular case remained without wives and no chance to reproduce (assuming we just claimed "that's the way nature works" where btw one male is more than enough for many, many females). 

This didn't work out too well in our society. Men strived to be closer to "equal". Couldn't happen if one had all the women and the other none. I assume this caused frequent fights as well. This type of thought is clearly present in the way a man is shaped. He seems, by nature, to be more competitive. Men who aren't that competitive typically even today have to worry about getting a woman. Thus, marriage was formed for alliance purposes, to allow most men to find a wife, keep her and ensure that they reproduce. On top of that, it turned out that some people believed kids to grow better with both a father and a mother (we can't assume this is necessarily correct). If a guy with all the money in the world had hundreds of kids, he still couldn't be around to offer attention to all of them. For multiple practical reasons (above + others other people mentioned) people started getting married. 

We've gone a long way from there though and some (perhaps most) people don't marry as an arrangement anymore. They don't marry for the sole purpose of reproducing and raising kids. They marry because they want to be together, feel "in love", like each other's company and in a way they want to secure that relationship by making sure they "belong to each other". Hence the concept of marriage has changed a lot. It does not mean the same thing anymore. That's one reason why we can't jump to the conclusion that it's the same old thing restricted to a "man and woman thing". 

My belief is that gay people want to be able to do the same i've just described....form an official pair in the eyes of the world that's legal and accepted. Of course the benefits they get from our society play a part in it as well. That's just called being practical. Straight couples think of the benefits they'd get if they were married too, in some situations. 



> one man and one woman


or in some cultures one man and multiple women. Or in some cultures a woman and a "god". Or in some cultures hermafrodites with each other if i can remember a Discovery channel documentary correctly. Don't assume that, just because of where you live, marriage is strictly a man + woman thing. All of the previous were called marriage in various parts around the world.


----------



## reachingshore

JMak00 said:


> Wha-wha-what?
> 
> Is that what the 9th Amendment means? That judges can simply invent rights? That's an unusual reading of the Constitution.


Well, it's YOUR constitution, YOUR law and YOUR judges.



JMak00 said:


> Cute, but I am not appealing to the Bible and my comments do not rely on scripture. You wanna talk about the Bible, well, that'll be a lonely convo.


I'd rather not be called cute, thank you very much  I'd opt for "sweet" 

You are appealing to the Bible and your comments and opinion do rely on the scripture when it comes to a definition of marriage. You view a history of mankind via a prism of a religion, which is not necessarily incorrect, because here I agree with you when you say religion had a large influence of how history from Middle Ages till some time around second half of the 20th century shaped up.


----------



## JMak00

Nekko said:


> And women weren't allowed to get an education and some people were slaves, and gay people until not so long ago were forced to hide their orientation their whole lives and marry an opposite-gender person with which they were miserable. These were all "normal parts of life" at one point in time. It was normal for people to see some other races of people as inferior, or the other gender, or other sexual orientations, or other beliefs, religions..etc....


I don't see how these statements constitute an argument for changing the definition of marriage. Perhaps you can enlighten me.



> Marriage has always been about a man and a woman because in my view marriage was created by men with a pretty obvious purpose. A strong, wealthy man is more than enough to impregnate, support and keep a dozen of women or much more (depending on circumstances). This is a fact of life.


Oh? Marriage is now what _you_ think it means notwithstanding the thousands of years it has existed...ok, I guess.

They don't marry for the sole purpose of reproducing and raising kids.[/quote]

And therein lies _your_ problem in this dicussion. You're unable to discuss marriage beyond an individual instance. You fail to acknowledge that there is a social institution called marriage. Your failure to acknowledge this fact leaves us talking past one another.



> That's one reason why we can't jump to the conclusion that it's the same old thing restricted to a "man and woman thing".


Marriage is and always has been man and woman. The reasons for marrying may change, the role that marriage plays in society may change, but the central tenet remains - man and woman. Deal with it.



> My belief is that gay people want to be able to do the same i've just described....form an official pair in the eyes of the world that's legal and accepted.


No, not just a stamp of approval. The stamp of approval is only good if bennies are attached to it. This is a benefits grab, plain and simple.



> Of course the benefits they get from our society play a part in it as well. That's just called being practical. Straight couples think of the benefits they'd get if they were married too, in some situations.


We provide these benefits to encourage marriage between man and woman to provide mothers and fathers to children. 

The benefits grab is the central purpose behind gay marriage. 



> or in some cultures one man and multiple women.


Not our culture. 



> Don't assume that, just because of where you live, marriage is strictly a man + woman thing.


I'm not assuming. It's a basic and central component of our social and cultural fabric. Man and woman. Pretty simple.



> All of the previous were called marriage in various parts around the world.


And they were still man and woman.

That's all well and good, but where are we? Here in the US.

Please don't undermine marriage for a benefits grab. Change the law regarding eligibility. Period.


----------



## JMak00

reachingshore said:


> Well, it's YOUR constitution, YOUR law and YOUR judges.


Huh? So you radically misinterpret our Constitution and when I call you on it, you wash your hands of it? LOL!



> You are appealing to the Bible and your comments and opinion do rely on the scripture when it comes to a definition of marriage.


Please cite a single appeal to scripture or the Bible. Sorry, but that doesn't fly.

Marriage in western civilization has always been man and woman. Deal with this. Address this. But, please, do not attribute to me religious appeals that I am not making.



> You view a history of mankind via a prism of a religion, which is not necessarily incorrect, because here I agree with you when you say religion had a large influence of how history from Middle Ages till some time around second half of the 20th century shaped up.


Uh no. No religious prism. Western civilization - marriage = man+woman. Simple.


----------



## reachingshore

JMak00 said:


> Huh? So you radically misinterpret our Constitution and when I call you on it, you wash your hands of it? LOL!


Please read. And please understand what you read. Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution



> Please cite a single appeal to scripture or the Bible


From a dictionary: "appeal [_noun_]" - a request or *reference* to some person or *authority* for a decision, corroboration, *judgment*, etc. 



> Marriage in western civilization has always been man and woman. Deal with this. Address this.


The world is changing. Deal with this.


----------



## Nekko

> Oh? Marriage is now what _you_ think it means notwithstanding the thousands of years it has existed...ok, I guess.


Marriage had different forms in different cultures. Are we talking strictly about the US here? I'm not from the US and i seem to see things differently. If i start talking about marriage, naturally i'll explore what marriage means throughout the world and time, not just in one country and not just in the past hundred or so years. 

I'll naturally tend to learn more about where it started. People got married before the US even existed as a country and i'm not saying this in an offensive way at all. You might want to change this to "it's been like that forever in the US" but then again, who were those people who moved to your continent to set up camp and where where they from? Bet they were from other parts of the world where marriage rules were somewhat different so in one way or another that can be considered as part of your history too. 

Wikipedia


> "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum


More Wikipedia



> The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.


Even more Wikipedia



> Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females.


Still not done 



> There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[37] It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome,[37] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.


As you can tell, there are different opinions on marriage. There are different opinions on same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage did exist in our history. That for some reason the US chose to ban it or ignore this possibility for many years, i can only state my opinion on whether that's good or not and i can fairly well accept your opinion. I'm just bothered by the "it's always been man and woman, deal with it" when in fact it hasn't because. 


Aren't all other institutions and laws adapted to how we live our lives today? If the reasons, motivation, ways of marriage have changed, isn't it logical that the institution of marriage changes as well?



> No, not just a stamp of approval. The stamp of approval is only good if bennies are attached to it. This is a benefits grab, plain and simple.


Yes. So? Aren't straight couples often interested in benefits? Aren't gay men or women marrying straight people of the opposite sex just for the sake of benefits? Isn't this worse?

How does this affect you and marriage personally? How does this impact your life and ruin marriage for you or for the people surrounding you? Why would i care if gay couples married and got benefits? Am i getting my own benefits? Am i happy in my marriage and have the right to do so? 

Why look in my neighbor's yard and yell "that's not fair?". It's none of my business whether those people are gay or not. They love each other, want to form an official couple, adopt a baby? What's the problem with that? So many mothers ditch their babies that i'd actually be glad to see married gay couples going for adoption.


----------



## Mrs.LonelyGal

JMak, you just keep saying the same thing over and over and over. 
Marriage = Man + Woman 
Period.
It is getting old.
There is no debating with you.

My question is why are you against this so called "benefits grab" for the gays?
Why should they be denied the benefits that marriage offers straight couples?
Is not equality a civil right?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

JMak00 said:


> And you once again demonstrate that you're a bad faith poster.
> 
> Why do you treat marriage so cavalierly? Perhaps this is why you see nothing wrong with fundamentally changing the institution of marriage and believe anyone opposed to that must be a bigot or mentally defective.


Yeah, you got me. I am a bad Christian and I certainly treat my marriage in the most cavalier fashion.


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> Again, why is it that there can be no legitimate disagreement with certain people? Why can't some people accept that there is a reasonable basis to disagree with them? Now I'm insecure because I oppose gay marriage. Really? This is absurd. In fact, it's not even an argument, it's a personal attack that shouldn't be part of the convo here.


For the record where personal attacks go, you accused me of a personal attack I did not make. You claimed I called you a uber neo con *******. I did not. I called a subset of rural Vermonters who tout "take back Vermont" that.

There might be reasonable basis to disagree on the gay marriage front. You just haven't happened to supply one. You assert that there is an institution that is being damaged. You cannot identify the institution or the nature of the damage. You assert a hetero two family home is the best family unit but supply no information on what is best about it or what actual data supports that it is achieved in hetero two family households.

To be honest, you "reason" sounds like Fox New sound bites that you have not given a great deal of thought to. If you want folk to find your basis for difference reasonable, you have to use reason!


----------



## Mom6547

Brennan said:


> See, now you are talking logic. By his/her definition anybody who is married and doesn't have children is altering God's will.


Who is this God person of whom we are speaking? I don't recognize the authority of this person whose existence I don't even believe in.


----------



## Mom6547

michzz said:


> I think they add in that you can't do it while one is whirling like a dervish.


Whaaaaaa! New fantasy. I have never done it in a whirling dervish!


----------



## MEM2020

MrsLonely,
He is not going to answer you. He carefully avoided my question about civil unions that were the legal equivalent of marriage. He made some snide comment about folks wanting to "give" these folks benefits. 

And of course that is a ludicrous position. I come back to the constitution. It says ALL men are created equal. Now in the beginning we know that meant all white land owning MALES. And now it legally seems to mean everybody but gay/lesbians. 

What it really comes down to is the burden is not on US, to show these folks are entitled to equal treatment, but for him to show that they are not. 

Big yawn - and this will become an increasingly non-issue as time passes since the younger generation has much, much fewer folks who think like Jmak. So the laws will continue to evolve.




Mrs.LonelyGal said:


> JMak, you just keep saying the same thing over and over and over.
> Marriage = Man + Woman
> Period.
> It is getting old.
> There is no debating with you.
> 
> My question is why are you against this so called "benefits grab" for the gays?
> Why should they be denied the benefits that marriage offers straight couples?
> Is not equality a civil right?


----------



## nice777guy

JMak - you keep talking about the courts. I've always understood that one important role of the courts is to protect the rights of minority groups. A majority (51%) of the population shouldn't be able to impose its will or infringe on the rights of a smaller section of the population.

If you put a referendum on a state ballot that outlawed Muslims from flying on airplanes or building Mosques near public schools, it might just pass, but the courts would rightfully overturn it.

I expect the state referendums which have outlawed gay marriage will eventually be overruled by our court system.

Checks and balances...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MEM11363 said:


> I come back to the constitution. It says ALL men are created equal. Now in the beginning we know that meant all white land owning MALES. And now it legally seems to mean everybody but gay/lesbians.


 I have not been following this thread at all, seems alot of disagreements going on & changnig issues. Feminism to Homosexuals rights. 

I seen the Bible mentioned. ALL I want to say is this "ALL men are created equal" concept is NOT Biblical at all. It is "Constitutional and in my humble opionioin, IS Godly. Written by inspired men, Thomas Jefferson influenced by Thomas Paine. I believe these man had Godly wisdom. They were not Chistians -but Deists.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

MEM11363 said:


> MrsLonely,
> He is not going to answer you. He carefully avoided my question about civil unions that were the legal equivalent of marriage. He made some snide comment about folks wanting to "give" these folks benefits.
> 
> And of course that is a ludicrous position. I come back to the constitution. It says ALL men are created equal. Now in the beginning we know that meant all white land owning MALES. And now it legally seems to mean everybody but gay/lesbians.
> 
> What it really comes down to is the burden is not on US, to show these folks are entitled to equal treatment, but for him to show that they are not.
> 
> Big yawn - and this will become an increasingly non-issue as time passes since the younger generation has much, much fewer folks who think like Jmak. So the laws will continue to evolve.


Exactly! For some reason, the law seems to turn a blind eye to the blatant discrimination of gay/lesbian people/couples. It seems to be the last "allowable" form of discrimination. This needs to evolve.


----------



## nice777guy

Defining marriage as only man and woman reminds me of starting a new job. You get trained on some weird, crazy task that makes no sense. When you ask questions, the answer you get is that "it's always been done like this."

That usually means no one has really given it any thought in a while, and the process is often outdated.

So, why again is marriage defined as man and woman?


----------



## major misfit

JMak00 said:


> Marriage has changed over time, no question, however, it's always been about a man and woman.
> 
> Gay marriage is not a natural nor logical extension of the evolution you habe acknowledged above.
> 
> Funny, that you, too, reduce your argument to a rhetorical device...


The ancient church is what designated it between a man and a woman. So I guess if you don't ascribe to religious beliefs, then that would be a moot point. I absolutely believe that gay marriage is a natural EVOLUTION. Just because the evolution as such isn't something YOU agree with, doensn't make it any less so.


----------



## JMak00

Nekko said:


> Marriage had different forms in different cultures. Are we talking strictly about the US here? I'm not from the US and i seem to see things differently. If i start talking about marriage, naturally i'll explore what marriage means throughout the world and time, not just in one country and not just in the past hundred or so years.


Yes, I am strictly speaking about the US where the gay marriage debate is quite hot right now.



> As you can tell, there are different opinions on marriage. There are different opinions on same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage did exist in our history. That for some reason the US chose to ban it or ignore this possibility for many years, i can only state my opinion on whether that's good or not and i can fairly well accept your opinion. I'm just bothered by the "it's always been man and woman, deal with it" when in fact it hasn't because.


The US has not banned gay marriage. Marriage throughout western civilization has always been man and woman. In the US marriage has been man and woman. Marriage simply has not included anything other than a man and woman in the US. 



> Aren't all other institutions and laws adapted to how we live our lives today? If the reasons, motivation, ways of marriage have changed, isn't it logical that the institution of marriage changes as well?


No, because the social institution of marriage in western civ has been man and woman. And, no, it's not logical that it should change. The institution of marriage does not need to change to accomodate the benefit demands of same-sex couples.



> Yes. So? Aren't straight couples often interested in benefits? Aren't gay men or women marrying straight people of the opposite sex just for the sake of benefits? Isn't this worse?


It doesn't matter whether individual hetero couples marry for the bennies. Because their relationships fits squarely within the institution of marriage.



> How does this affect you and marriage personally? How does this impact your life and ruin marriage for you or for the people surrounding you?


It doesn't and that's quite irrelevant. What's relevant is the move to fundamentally change the institution of marriage.



> Why would i care if gay couples married and got benefits? Am i getting my own benefits? Am i happy in my marriage and have the right to do so?


In the US you should care because it fundamentally alters what the institution of marriage is. Marriage here is and has been to rear children and provide children with a mother and father - the most successful family unit known in human history.



> Why look in my neighbor's yard and yell "that's not fair?". It's none of my business whether those people are gay or not.


This ain't about being gay, no matter how you want to pervert the discussion about marriage. This is about changing marriage to accomodate a new group of people never accomodated in western marriage.



> They love each other, want to form an official couple, adopt a baby? What's the problem with that? So many mothers ditch their babies that i'd actually be glad to see married gay couples going for adoption.


They don't need to be married to do so. And we need not transform marriage to arrive at that destination.


----------



## JMak00

reachingshore said:


> Please read. And please understand what you read. Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution


The 9th amendment is not intended to expand the authority of the federal government. Keep in mind that our Constitution seeks to limit the authority of the US. The 9th, as out framers intended, does not exist to permit the federal govt to regulate or infringe upoin rights not specifically enumerated in the first eight amendments.



> The world is changing. Deal with this.


Is this a valid argument? About anything?


----------



## JMak00

Mrs.LonelyGal said:


> JMak, you just keep saying the same thing over and over and over.
> Marriage = Man + Woman
> Period.
> It is getting old.
> There is no debating with you.
> 
> My question is why are you against this so called "benefits grab" for the gays?
> Why should they be denied the benefits that marriage offers straight couples?
> Is not equality a civil right?


Equality is not a civil right, in my opinion. Equality is a result. Equal opportunity is a civil right, but not equality of outcomes.

I am against changing the central feature of marriage just so same-sex couples can beocme eligible for bennies they're not otherwisae eligible for. Change the laws conferring thge benefits they want access to. Do not fundamentally alter a bedrock foundational pillar of western civilization.


----------



## JMak00

vthomeschoolmom said:


> For the record where personal attacks go, you accused me of a personal attack I did not make. You claimed I called you a uber neo con *******. I did not. I called a subset of rural Vermonters who tout "take back Vermont" that.


I thought the clear implication was that you were finding some similarity between my comments/opinions and those you were describing. My apologiers if I found something that wasn't there.



> There might be reasonable basis to disagree on the gay marriage front. You just haven't happened to supply one. You assert that there is an institution that is being damaged. You cannot identify the institution or the nature of the damage


I've presented a couple arguments. First, that gay marriage fundamentally alters the institution of marriage in western civilization. The institution of marriage is the social/cultural arrangement to raise children and provide a mother and father to those children. That's why marriage in western civ has always been man and woman. The central and fundamental aspect of marriage is man and woman. Gay marriage radically changes that, no? Second, that there's no reasonable basis to alter marriage so radically simply for same-sex couples to beocme eligible for certain government-subsidized benefits or entitlements when those things can be attained simply by changing the laws conferring these benefits and entitlements.

That you refuse to open your eyes to the role of marriage in the US and western civ is not my problem. 



> You assert a hetero two family home is the best family unit but supply no information on what is best about it or what actual data supports that it is achieved in hetero two family households.


It's certainly the most successful, that's why you don't see anywhere in the world national populations succeeding based upoin same-sex marriage.

The family unit shapes the individual. The family unit is the building block of society. Gay marriage threatens the integrity of the family by compromising the institution of marriage.



> To be honest, you "reason" sounds like Fox New sound bites that you have not given a great deal of thought to. If you want folk to find your basis for difference reasonable, you have to use reason!


There you go, again. Guilt by association. 

I can't help you open yourself to reason. You deliberately blind yourself to the foundational premise of marriage. Instead, it appears that you believe that marriage simply arose as a way to formalize obligations, when, in fact, marriage serves a much broader societal purpose than simply a contract.


----------



## JMak00

MEM11363 said:


> MrsLonely,
> He is not going to answer you. He carefully avoided my question about civil unions that were the legal equivalent of marriage. He made some snide comment about folks wanting to "give" these folks benefits.


I didn't avoid it. I am defending marriage. I oppose altering the definition and institution of marriage simply for a benefits grab.



> And of course that is a ludicrous position. I come back to the constitution. It says ALL men are created equal. Now in the beginning we know that meant all white land owning MALES. And now it legally seems to mean everybody but gay/lesbians.


Nice work completely taking words in the Constituttion out of context. Equality in the eyes of the law means being treated equitably. Marriage is man and woman. You can marry if you marry someone of the opposite sex. When married, you are treated similarly as oither married people are. That's equality under the law. 

What gay marriage supporters want to do is gain access to the benefits accessible by marriage people and are choosing to do it by destroying the institution of marriage. So, I am defending marriage.



> What it really comes down to is the burden is not on US, to show these folks are entitled to equal treatment, but for him to show that they are not.


Wrong. Marriage in the US has been man and woman. The burden on you is to present an argument that says same-sex couples should fit within that definition of marriage.

And if you going to say marriage is a civil right, then establish the basis of that right. Simply asserting it as a fact does not make it so.



> Big yawn - and this will become an increasingly non-issue as time passes since the younger generation has much, much fewer folks who think like Jmak. So the laws will continue to evolve.


We'll see. But the fact remains that as of now, Americans don't want gay marriage. That is why gay marriage advocates are abusing the courts to get a result that cannot otherwise get at the ballot box via a democratic process.


----------



## MEM2020

Jmak,
Look at the demographics of the polling results. The correlation between age and viewpoint on this topic is very high. And yes - even in the younger generation there are people who think as you do. But no where near a majority.

I find your repeated statements that allowing gay/lesbian marriage destroys "marriage" for hetero couples to be wholly and utterly without merit. If every same sex couple in the US "married" tomorrow it would have zero "tangible" impact on any hetero married couple. 

Do you realize that your "precedent" argument is the exact same logic used by folks in prior generations to oppose racially mixed marriage. It went against precedent. It was wrong simply because no one "used" to do it. 





JMak00 said:


> I didn't avoid it. I am defending marriage. I oppose altering the definition and institution of marriage simply for a benefits grab.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice work completely taking words in the Constituttion out of context. Equality in the eyes of the law means being treated equitably. Marriage is man and woman. You can marry if you marry someone of the opposite sex. When married, you are treated similarly as oither married people are. That's equality under the law.
> 
> What gay marriage supporters want to do is gain access to the benefits accessible by marriage people and are choosing to do it by destroying the institution of marriage. So, I am defending marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Marriage in the US has been man and woman. The burden on you is to present an argument that says same-sex couples should fit within that definition of marriage.
> 
> And if you going to say marriage is a civil right, then establish the basis of that right. Simply asserting it as a fact does not make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see. But the fact remains that as of now, Americans don't want gay marriage. That is why gay marriage advocates are abusing the courts to get a result that cannot otherwise get at the ballot box via a democratic process.


----------



## Conrad

The only rational argument against gay marriage centers around the children.

I think mothers and fathers make unique contributions to child-rearing.

Lord knows this board is testimony to how fundamentally differently males and females view the world.

I think children benefit from this dichotomy.

Making gays "equal" in marriage means there will be competition for adoption and - most likely - quotas for those "under-represented" in adoption over the years.

I don't think this is a positive step for kids who really need the benefit of a mother and a father.

As a disclaimer, I'm an adoptive parent.

So, take that however you wish.


----------



## Pandakiss

if you dont like gay marriage for whatever reason, you dont have to. you dont have to look or particapate in it.

theres things i dont like and dont agree with [lil' wayne] but i dont keep looking.

without condoming or condenming.

there is no real reason other than i dont have to like it .


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> I've presented a couple arguments. First, that gay marriage fundamentally alters the institution of marriage in western civilization. The institution of marriage is the social/cultural arrangement to raise children and provide a mother and father to those children. That's why marriage in western civ has always been man and woman. The central and fundamental aspect of marriage is man and woman. Gay marriage radically changes that, no? Second, that there's no reasonable basis to alter marriage so radically simply for same-sex couples to beocme eligible for certain goverment-subsidized benefits or entitlements when those things can be attained simply by changing the laws conferring these benefits and entitlements.
> 
> That you refuse to open your eyes to the role of marriage in the US and western civ is not my problem.


"Your refusal to open your eyes" constitutes more piss poor logic... but what do I expect?

1. You assert that marriage is for raising children. You forget that it has LONG been of defining property rights and inheritance. I would assert that in recent past, change that has had nothing whatsoever to do with gay people wanting also to be married, that marriage's role as somehow related to child rearing has already fallen apart. Child free by choice folk marry. People divorce. This is no small minority to dismiss out of hand as you have done. The "definition" of marriage is no longer so much about child REARING though does continue to be about property rights and inheritance. 

All of this is completely moot since there is no reason to believe your assertion that one man one woman marriage is the ideal environment to raise children. The supporters of this notion have it backward. The qualities that make a good environment are mature, loving, caring, responsible parents or guardians. When marriage was more the social norm, *people with these qualities were more likely to remain married.* Not that marriage caused the good environment, but that the good environment was caused by the maturity and responsibility of the parents.

You asserted that one man one woman was a superior environment as if it were a first premise, self evident standing on its own. It is not. And as such, if you want your arguments to be taken as something like reason, it is incumbent on you to support the assertion. I doubt you can do that.

However it is irrelevant because even THAT argument is completely moot as well as far as I am concerned. Regardless of whether or not marriage was historically intended for providing a stable environment for child rearing, it has failed miserably and completely to that end. We don't have the right to deny rights to one group to fail as miserably as another.




> It's certainly the most successful, that's why you don't see anywhere in the world national populations succeeding based upoin same-sex marriage.


I would love for you to cite some kind of study, hell I would be satisfied with an article in Newsweek, that talks about sociology of family, marriage and successful child rearing. As I say, you assert that one man one woman marriage is somehow more successful as a base premise. You even say "certainly" but there is nothing certain about it.

Even if it WERE, it is not a very good legal basis for denying gay people the right to marry since its intention has failed so miserably. 



> I can't help you open yourself to reason.


Well when you start using it, let me know.


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> There you go, again. Guilt by association.
> Do you know what guilt by association means? Or did you just admit that you are regurgitating a bunch of whooey off of Fox News?


----------



## JMak00

I know of no such role. Sure, we see people like Obama asserting that the courts are for protecting the little guy. Wrong. The courts exist to resolve conflict between rights being asserted by conflicting parties. The courts review the law to determine who should prevail. The courts do not exist to arbitrarily determine who is the little guy or otherwise and then further decide a case based on that determination. You'd actually like that kind of court system????

And what state referendums are you referring? In most states, state law is that marriage is man or woman. In others that have sought to protect marriage, state law reaffirms that definition. 

And your analogy is a bogus one. It presumes a civil right to marriage exists and no one has established that, yet. Instead, gay marriage advocates simply declare that a right exists and then denounces opponents as bigots. It's an appeal to emotion and an invalid/illogical argument. 




nice777guy said:


> JMak - you keep talking about the courts. I've always understood that one important role of the courts is to protect the rights of minority groups. A majority (51%) of the population shouldn't be able to impose its will or infringe on the rights of a smaller section of the population.
> 
> If you put a referendum on a state ballot that outlawed Muslims from flying on airplanes or building Mosques near public schools, it might just pass, but the courts would rightfully overturn it.
> 
> I expect the state referendums which have outlawed gay marriage will eventually be overruled by our court system.
> 
> Checks and balances...


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

Brennan said:


> Exactly! For some reason, the law seems to turn a blind eye to the blatant discrimination of gay/lesbian people/couples. It seems to be the last "allowable" form of discrimination. This needs to evolve.


Last allowable form of discrimination? We all discriminate everyday. Employers discriminate everyday. Discrimination is all around us and much of it is permissable and preferable. 

What you really meant to say is that you think marriage improperly discriminates against gays. Well, of course, it does. Marriage as we have understood it here in the US has only been man and woman (until recently as the courts have started changing our laws).
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> Last allowable form of discrimination? We all discriminate everyday. Employers discriminate everyday. Discrimination is all around us and much of it is permissable and preferable.


Preferable? Holy crispy carp, batman.



> What you really meant to say is that you think marriage improperly discriminates against gays. Well, of course, it does. Marriage as we have understood it here in the US has only been man and woman (until recently as the courts have started changing our laws).
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


God help us all since I bet this person votes.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Preferable? Holy crispy carp, batman.
> 
> God help us all since I bet this person votes.


vthomeschoolmom's quips - priceless!


----------



## Mom6547

I meant crap! Not carp!

When I was a kid, there was a batman cartoon on tv. Robin always said Holy <g-rated expletive>, batman! I can't help myself.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Does repeating this over and over make it more true for you?


Like I said...priceless!


----------



## JMak00

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Preferable? Holy crispy carp, batman.
> 
> 
> 
> God help us all since I bet this person votes.


Quit being obtuse...

Employers and academic institutions discriminate everyday and legally so on job-related or admissions factor bases. 

Simply crying discrimination without establishing the illegality of such is an empty cry and demonstrates the emptiness of the argument being presented. 

Please tell me that you don't believe employers should not be able to discriminate on job-related factors?!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

nice777guy said:


> Defining marriage as only man and woman reminds me of starting a new job. You get trained on some weird, crazy task that makes no sense. When you ask questions, the answer you get is that "it's always been done like this."
> 
> That usually means no one has really given it any thought in a while, and the process is often outdated.
> 
> So, why again is marriage defined as man and woman?


It is. Why should it change? That's your burden.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

major misfit said:


> The ancient church is what designated it between a man and a woman. So I guess if you don't ascribe to religious beliefs, then that would be a moot point. I absolutely believe that gay marriage is a natural EVOLUTION. Just because the evolution as such isn't something YOU agree with, doensn't make it any less so.


Please explain how it is natural to fundamentally alter man/woman marriage. Marriage exists in western civ to facilitate child birth and rearing notwithstanding gay marriage advocate need/demand that marriage is nothing more than a contract. Therefore, gay marriage is not a natural extension of marriage.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> Quit being obtuse...
> 
> Employers and academic institutions discriminate everyday and legally so on job-related or admissions factor bases.


I am getting really disgusted, I am afraid to say. "on a job-related or admissions factor basis." Do you know what the word discrimination MEANS? It does not mean having standards. It means prejudicial treatment based on sex or race or some other group identity. Prejudice. Pre-judge.

You may be referring to quotas. I don't know for sure. But a quota is not prejudice. It was a tool used to attempt to combat prejudice and discrimination. Whether it was historically effective or right, I can't argue. I don't have enough information.



> Simply crying discrimination without establishing the illegality of such is an empty cry and demonstrates the emptiness of the argument being presented.


Cringing.... trying... straining... not to get into a fight of ad hom with a person whose reason is not worth it.
Please tell me that you don't believe employers s


> Should not be able to discriminate on job-related factors?!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That isn't discrimination.


----------



## JMak00

MEM11363 said:


> Jmak,
> Look at the demographics of the polling results. The correlation between age and viewpoint on this topic is very high. And yes - even in the younger generation there are people who think as you do. But no where near a majority.
> 
> I find your repeated statements that allowing gay/lesbian marriage destroys "marriage" for hetero couples to be wholly and utterly without merit. If every same sex couple in the US "married" tomorrow it would have zero "tangible" impact on any hetero married couple.
> 
> Do you realize that your "precedent" argument is the exact same logic used by folks in prior generations to oppose racially mixed marriage. It went against precedent. It was wrong simply because no one "used" to do it.


Funny...I have explicitly stated that my argument is not that gay marriage affects an individual marriage, yet, you people continue insistuing that's what I've said. LOL!

And I'm not appealing to precedent there's a very real and legit basis for man/woman marriage...child rearing. It's the most successful family unit in human history. That's not to say it is the only...but it's the most successful. 

And I see yet another appeal to a civil right...what is this civil right you refer to? Where does it come from?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> Quit being obtuse...


I recall you getting more that a tad pissy when someone else called you names. 

I am done speaking with you. It hasn't been that pleasant of a ride. Have fun with your ignorance. People who lack any kind of thinking skills such as yourself only hasten my interest in moving to Europe where people are more often taught to THINK.


----------



## JMak00

Can gays reproduce? Period. Society cannot survive upon gay relationships. It's that simple.

The most successful family unit is man/woman marriage - this is QED. Western civilization is the most successful of all time and it is based on hetero marriage. Do you see a suuceesful poluamorous society? Do you see a successful gay society? Why not?

I can say hetero marriage is most sucessful simply be opening my eyes. We wouldn't be here otherwise. It is that obvious. 



vthomeschoolmom said:


> "Your refusal to open your eyes" constitutes more piss poor logic... but what do I expect?
> 
> 1. You assert that marriage is for raising children. You forget that it has LONG been of defining property rights and inheritance. I would assert that in recent past, change that has had nothing whatsoever to do with gay people wanting also to be married, that marriage's role as somehow related to child rearing has already fallen apart. Child free by choice folk marry. People divorce. This is no small minority to dismiss out of hand as you have done. The "definition" of marriage is no longer so much about child REARING though does continue to be about property rights and inheritance.
> 
> All of this is completely moot since there is no reason to believe your assertion that one man one woman marriage is the ideal environment to raise children. The supporters of this notion have it backward. The qualities that make a good environment are mature, loving, caring, responsible parents or guardians. When marriage was more the social norm, *people with these qualities were more likely to remain married.* Not that marriage caused the good environment, but that the good environment was caused by the maturity and responsibility of the parents.
> 
> You asserted that one man one woman was a superior environment as if it were a first premise, self evident standing on its own. It is not. And as such, if you want your arguments to be taken as something like reason, it is incumbent on you to support the assertion. I doubt you can do that.
> 
> However it is irrelevant because even THAT argument is completely moot as well as far as I am concerned. Regardless of whether or not marriage was historically intended for providing a stable environment for child rearing, it has failed miserably and completely to that end. We don't have the right to deny rights to one group to fail as miserably as another.
> 
> 
> 
> I would love for you to cite some kind of study, hell I would be satisfied with an article in Newsweek, that talks about sociology of family, marriage and successful child rearing. As I say, you assert that one man one woman marriage is somehow more successful as a base premise. You even say "certainly" but there is nothing certain about it.
> 
> Even if it WERE, it is not a very good legal basis for denying gay people the right to marry since its intention has failed so miserably.
> 
> 
> Well when you start using it, let me know.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

vthomeschoolmom said:


> JMak00 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go, again. Guilt by association.
> Do you know what guilt by association means? Or did you just admit that you are regurgitating a bunch of whooey off of Fox News?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you did suggest I was just spouting Fox News nonsense, no? And that implication there is that whatever is aired on Fox News is nonsense. Hense, you were associating my views with Fox News. My views therefore being guilty of nonsense, no? Why else cite Fox News at all?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
Click to expand...


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> Can gays reproduce? Period. Society cannot survive upon gay relationships. It's that simple.
> 
> The most successful family unit is man/woman marriage - this is QED.


Q.E.D

quod erat demonstrandum, which means "what was to be demonstrated". 

Did you demonstrate it? I think not. If this were the case, you would not see so many instance of f'ed up married families. Lord knows there are plenty.


You misuse words and phrases as if you know what you are talking about. 



> Western civilization is the most successful of all time and it is based on hetero marriage. Do you see a suuceesful poluamorous society? Do you see a successful gay society? Why not?


A whole society does not have to adopt the same lifestyle. One group's lifestyle choice does not need to completely define society. Society can comprise of multi-theist, multicultural, multi-cuisinal (my favorite, yes I just made it up) acceptance. 

I have seen polyamorists, gays, transgendered people, transvestite people who have what I consider the REAL traits for successful parenting. Thoughtful consideration, maturity, love, caring, values, integrity. 





> I can say hetero marriage is most sucessful simply be opening my eyes. We wouldn't be here otherwise. It is that obvious.


If it were so obvious, it would be demonstrable. I challenge you to demonstrate it. So much so that I will actually continue to read your dribble in case you actually try.


----------



## JMak00

You were being obtuse because you knew damn well that I was not advocating illegal discrimination with the comments tou quoted, yet you right ahead and chose to interpet them that way. 

And now you call me ignorant...because you don't agree with me. Must be a bigot, sexist, mentally deficient, or ignorant to disagree with you folks, right? LOL!

And, of course, this wouldn't be a fun ride for you. You believe that the institution of marriage should be radically altered simply to facilitate a benefits grab. You're not interested in protecting marriage...

Therefore, you'd be more at home in Europe where the people are being ran rougshod over by PC bureaucrats seeking to impose the EU on them over their clear objections. Kinda like you demanding that your preferences simply be imposed lest us ignorant bigots express our opinions to the contrary. 



vthomeschoolmom said:


> I recall you getting more that a tad pissy when someone else called you names.
> 
> I am done speaking with you. It hasn't been that pleasant of a ride. Have fun with your ignorance. People who lack any kind of thinking skills such as yourself only hasten my interest in moving to Europe where people are more often taught to THINK.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

That man/woman marriage is the most successful family unit is hardly somthing that would protect against f'up families. The institution is what I am defending, not individual instances within the institution. The institution relies on man/woman relationships. Change that and you change the institution radically. 

And you're right, a whole society neednt adopt a single lifestyle. And I'm not saying they should. Not everyone need marry. What I am saying is that marriage is man/woman and has been that way in our history. If gays want to marry then don't radically change marriage to accomplish that. Pretty simple. 

And I agree that gays, trans, etc can all possess traits to be successful parents. But that's not the point. They can't reproduce in same-sex relationships and we know two-parent family structures are more successful than single-parent units. We cannot rely on adoption to perpetuate our society. 

I don't the hard part here. That man/woman marriage and family units are best seems so obvious. Like you have blind yourself to believe otherwise. 

Marriage aint a contract no matter how you try to minimiz marriage to diminish it's role in society. 



vthomeschoolmom said:


> Q.E.D
> 
> quod erat demonstrandum, which means "what was to be demonstrated".
> 
> Did you demonstrate it? I think not. If this were the case, you would not see so many instance of f'ed up married families. Lord knows there are plenty.
> 
> 
> You misuse words and phrases as if you know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> A whole society does not have to adopt the same lifestyle. One group's lifestyle choice does not need to completely define society. Society can comprise of multi-theist, multicultural, multi-cuisinal (my favorite, yes I just made it up) acceptance.
> 
> I have seen polyamorists, gays, transgendered people, transvestite people who have what I consider the REAL traits for successful parenting. Thoughtful consideration, maturity, love, caring, values, integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were so obvious, it would be demonstrable. I challenge you to demonstrate it. So much so that I will actually continue to read your dribble in case you actually try.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> And, of course, this wouldn't be a fun ride for you.


It is not a fun ride for me because, despite having the reputation of being a bit of a mouth on this board, I believe in love above all things. I believe in democracy to some degree. But it has its faults. And one of those faults is that people don't have to actually have to have any correct information or judgment to formulate their opinion. You have made so many careless and erroneous assertions, all aimed at the ultimate goal of hate and bigotry. It looks no different to me than the fight for race rights. 

But in the end history will move with my PoV. It has already begun and cannot be stopped. So my discouragement that the voice of hate continues to sometimes hold sway in the polling booths will go away when right is done for these people finally. And it will be despite the protestations of some. In many ways you have proved my original point of this long thread. New is here to stay. And some people have a hard time adapting.


----------



## JMak00

But of course there's no legit disagreement with you. It must be bigotry and hatred. 

I am discouraged by the simple closed-mindedness of it all. That you and others simply cannot be disagreed with. That your opponents are always motivated by hatred and bigotry. 

So very liberal of you...no wonder you only like democracy to a degree!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547

JMak00 said:


> But of course there's no legit disagreement with you. It must be bigotry and hatred.


When you offer one, we'll talk.

Cheers and peace out.


----------



## reachingshore

JMak00 said:


> Last allowable form of discrimination? We all discriminate everyday. Employers discriminate everyday. Discrimination is all around us and much of it is permissable and preferable.
> 
> What you really meant to say is that you think marriage improperly discriminates against gays. Well, of course, it does. Marriage as we have understood it here in the US has only been man and woman (until recently as the courts have started changing our laws).
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Have you heard of something called "reverse discrimination"? What are your thoughts on that? Especially in view of employment?


----------



## JMak00

vthomeschoolmom said:


> When you offer one, we'll talk.
> 
> Cheers and peace out.


I can't reason out what was not reasoned in the first place.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JMak00

reachingshore said:


> Have you heard of something called "reverse discrimination"? What are your thoughts on that? Especially in view of employment?


Sure I've heard of it...so what?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Conrad

vthomeschoolmom said:


> JMak00 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go, again. Guilt by association.
> Do you know what guilt by association means? Or did you just admit that you are regurgitating a bunch of whooey off of Fox News?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow
Click to expand...


----------



## reachingshore

Adam and Eve, the gay version

Let's sue God









:rofl:


----------

