Posted on 12/08/2014 7:12:10 AM PST by Salvation
Whether married or single, the answer to the mess men are in is always Jesus Christ and the true manhood he offers. The man Christ Jesus gives us self-control (something essential re:”sexual energies”). Real manhood is submitting to the Father of our spirits! Real cowardice is refusing the upward call of God and all that implies.
Good questions.
Its quite silly for the state to issue a license to engage in acts that are perfectly legal without the license.
I'm an advocate of getting married within the Church and ignoring the State. The State doesn't recognize marriage as a sacrament, so why should the Church recognize the State's control over it, when they don't exercise control over it in any fashion?
Beginning Experience, a peer facilitated weekend for those who are grieving the loss of a loved one
It's non-denominational but does end with a Mass. (Patterned after the Marriage Encounter weekend, only with small groups.)
That’s interesting. I can see the appeal, but have seen firsthand how some Asian women have become superficial, money-hungry little monsters over time and bolted from their American husbands. “Bad company corrupts good character”—1 Cor. 15:33 (Paul quoting Menander)
Your thesis is flawed. Words like retreat and statements like job equality indicate that you like a kinder gentle form of feminism. The roots of the problem are much deeper than that. The emphesis on the individual rather than the family in: economics, rights and status represent a more foundational framing. Feminism like communism sees the family as a hindrance to their goals and so they labor to break the family structure to erect thier own vision of society, but that vision has never been and can never be. Thus both communism and feminism is destruction of the most basic building block of soviety in defiance of God and His created order. Money is not free and women are not men, but insanity does not blink an eye. Feminism sacrifices the family for the female member’s short-term benefit. The patriarchy is supplanted for the amazon reign, and that reign is the annihilation of society. Sow the wind reap the whirlwind!
Men = providers and protectors
Except now they are big babies and want to come first ahead of their children and focus on their sex lives. That’s the problem. Not feminism.
**Feminism like communism sees the family as a hindrance to their goals and so they labor to break the family structure to erect their own vision of society, but that vision has never been and can never be. Thus both communism and feminism is destruction of the most basic building block of society in defiance of God and His created order. **
What truth!
I disagree.
We all need to turn back to the Bible and follow what it says. Start with Ephesians 5:22-33.
Yes, the men need to lay down their lives for their wives FIRST and following that, the women need to respect the men. It starts with the men.
This focus on their sex lives is what’s killing it.
I think both sexes are guilty of the drive for sex first. If anything, the women far exceed the men in my opinion.
The article is about young men who are "checking out". They have no wives, no children, no "sex lives" worthy of the name, and very little interest in acquiring anything like any of those.
My son is one of them. Maybe both my sons.
You're clearly talking about something else.
Because modern American college-educated feminist women speak an alien language -- I know, it *sounds* very much like English, but clearly the words mean very different things -- so what the Hell, why not go all-in and marry someone from a completely foreign culture? Odds are, at least she'll be able to make something for dinner besides reservations or a phone call for carry-out.
Sex is only appropriate during marriage. And having kids is the reason. If the men are watching porn and want the women to act like that, it ain’t happening.
That has always been the case, so nothing would change with your proposal.
People don't have to have legal marriages and never did, but they want their marriage to be legal in most cases, for instance in the military.
Ping!
Unless reversed in short order, it is very difficult to see much besides social chaos ahead.
William Flax
Actually it has not always been the case.
There were enforced laws in the past against a man and a woman living together without a marriage license.
Additionally, polygamy might be universally illegal, but those laws are also universally unenforced when all parties are willing. The only polygamy related arrests are due to benefits fraud.
You are ignoring the larger point as you look for some exceptions within the United States, for instance George Washington didn’t have to comply with state law because his religious marriage was enough for cohabitation, it just wasn’t compliant with government law unless it met certain criteria (common law marriage is like that, it has to be legal, to be legal), but he made sure that it was, because he wanted the benefits of legal marriage.
Marriage based on personal religious views has always been possible in America, so what does your plan to not have legal marriage for people do, that is different?
How many people do you think are willing to not have their marriages be legal? Your suggestion is useless as a solution to protecting marriage.
So when are men going to change the laws they’ve made?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.