This is Why You Shouldn’t Take Dating Advice from Sexist Christian Pastors

Apparently there are single women who ask Pastor Mark Driscoll for dating advice. Which I guess he’s qualified to give since he once told his pregnant wife he never would’ve married her if he had known she fooled around in high school.

His advice is that a single woman has six options available to her and she needs to pick one of them. (You know they’re good options because they all begin with the same letter. Hence, logic.)

He wants women to choose Option #6: Solace (“take comfort… that Jesus is the Man in your life who sympathizes with your singleness”), but I had a hard time getting past Option #1: Sin.

Because no woman who ever dated casually, had sex just for fun, or lived with her boyfriend before marriage has ever had a lasting relationship:

You can decide that God has not come through for you, so you take matters into your own hands. You decide to be a gal who parties a lot, casually dates a bunch of guys you’d never marry, sleeps around, moves in with a guy, or does other things that will really hurt the one relationship you have with a great man: Jesus Christ. If you take this path, you will eventually come to feel horrible for what you have done and miserable in the world you live.

Right. How horrible it is to meet different people until you click with one, find out for yourself if you can be around that person 24/7, and discover if you two have sexual chemistry before jumping into a lifelong commitment.

Would anyone care to prove him wrong…?

Let’s hope Driscoll plagiarized this essay, too, since admitting he wrote it himself would be far more embarrassing.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    This is Why You Shouldn’t Take Dating Advice from Sexist Christian Pastors

    I’m not sure that’s the right message here. I expect that many pastors are actually quite good counselors, and can be trusted to provide good advice- not because of their Christianity, but despite it.

    The better message, I think, is don’t draw upon religious dogma as a source for dating advice (or any other advice, really).

  • Art_Vandelay

    I highly doubt that anyone religious enough to become a pastor is offering their therapeutic services sans the religious dogma.

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    I’m not sure. I wouldn’t be surprised if the incidence of atheism is higher amongst pastors than the general public. I don’t think you need to be all that religious to become a pastor.

  • Richard Thomas

    Care to elaborate?

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    Well, one of the ways that many religious people become atheists is by actually reflecting on their beliefs. That’s something that quite a few pastors must do. It is difficult to maintain a belief in Christianity (if not gods in general) once you spend a lot of time thinking about it. We do hear that message from former and current atheist pastors.

    I have a childhood friend who became a (RCC) priest, not because of any calling, but because it was an expectation by his family. I think many people become priests and pastors for just that reason. For many, it’s just a job.

  • adamaphar

    Christianity has an atheistic element to it, in that it points to a God beyond being. In apophatic theology, the question “Does God exist?” would sensibly be answered “no.” Or, rather, God is not the sort of thing for which existence is an appropriate category.

  • Machintelligence

    Really? God is so powerful He doesn’t even need to exist in order to save us? Do I have that right?

  • baal

    I’m trying to recall but I think I heard WLC actually say that god ‘exists’ outside of existence and that’s why he was able to push literally everything into existence. Else existence would have to be infinite and infinity is not ok (why? who knows, WLC didn’t say).

  • Richard Thomas

    I see your point and I definitely agree that reflection is good for ridding superstition, but I guess I just don’t see too much of the therapeutic services sans religion under the title “pastor” as opposed to just “therapist” or “counselor.” It WOULD be nice if we could have more and more mental health professionals et al available with the free access of a pastor but without the religious overtones (“pray the gay away” and all that.)

  • smrnda

    At the same time, I’d recommend that anyone get help from a real professional counselor rather than a member of the clergy. I put getting advice from the clergy at slightly below asking for advice from friends – you may feel comfortable talking to someone, they may know you, but it’s probably not the best idea.

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    Sure, if their situation is such that they actually need a professional counselor. I don’t really put “dating advice” in that category. I think the example in this post is very much in the category of things you ask your friends, or ask people whose opinions you value (such as a pastor). We’re talking advice, not therapy.

    In fact, there are many cases where a pastor may know the person very well, and could be an excellent source for advice as long as they don’t let too much religious dogma get in the way.

  • KrisDStar

    Actually, therapy can help with dating advice. It can guide you in what you are really seeking from a partner, and what internalized issues you have that may be a barrier to you connecting with someone.
    Therapy covers all kinds of life issues. They aren’t just for people who have mental health issues.
    And, also, almost half of the american population suffers from a mental disorder at some point in their lives – but few actually seek out professional help.
    I don’t think that a pastor, who will use a holy book as their guidance to a successful relationship, really has a grasp on how people form attachments, and how to identity healthy and unhealthy relationships.
    Therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and counsellors are trained at that. And therein lies the difference.

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    Therapy can help with many things. Nevertheless, I think it is often overused, and would not generally recommend it to somebody asking for simple relationship advice.

    I completely agree that a pastor who uses a holy book (or any religious dogma) as their guide is not somebody likely to give very good advice (indeed, the advice is likely to be bad). My point was that I think many pastors actually give fairly solid advice about ordinary life decisions precisely because they don’t get overly mired in dogma.

  • KrisDStar

    How in the world can people who are trained to help people make decisions be overused in helping people make decisions.
    And how are pastors not overly mired in dogma? They would give advice contrary to their religion?

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    Frankly, I doubt that most counselors can give better routine life advice then friends.

  • KrisDStar

    Well, frankly, your doubt doesn’t translate into results.

  • adamaphar

    Actually I know quite a few pastoral counselors who know how to set aside their dogmas in order to listen attentively to the spiritual concerns and questions that the counselee has. A therapist has to be able to do the same thing. In fact, I would say it is pretty much par for the course.

  • Art_Vandelay

    I’m still skeptical but if I may ask a couple questions:

    1. What exactly do you do where you get to know so many pastoral counselors? I know exactly zero pastoral counselors.

    2. Are you sincerely telling me that someone goes to these pastoral counselors with their “spiritual concerns” and then the pastoral counselors don’t address their “spiritual concerns” within the context of Christianity? Not even a WWJD?

  • adamaphar

    1. I’m a student of psychology, but I’m pretty involved in church life in Philadelphia. I have connections with several of the monasteries in the region, as well as some of the city churches. When I was working as a chaplain I knew spiritual counselors/directors of all varieties. Interesting that you don’t know any pastoral counselors, but you seem to know a lot about their method of providing pastoral counseling!

    2. Absolutely! You are right: there are pastors out there that will try to give a “spiritual fix.” But many people who become pastors also study their faith enough to realize that an authentic faith must be born through struggle. Providing answers satisfies people immediately, but really does nothing toward helping the person develop a way of living with the awe, mystery, and tragedy of the universe.
    The “WWJD” crowd, yeah they exist and they tend to give religion a bad name. I don’t worry about them too much.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    I know plenty of people who got incredibly lousy advice from their pastors. I’m sure others are quite good at it, but it seems like something most of them aren’t really trained to do and too often the fundamentalists offer laughably simplistic solutions.

  • KrisDStar

    The difference of course being that a therapist is licensed and has been to school specifically for therapy. The pastor, however, is simply a person who thinks their role as pastor is qualifies him or her to also be a therapist.
    It doesn’t. You might as well as ask a random person on the street – it would be the same level of qualification.

  • smrnda

    It’s no different than when people consult astrologers or other woo type people when they want a quick emotional pick-up. I’m sure some of these people mean well, but in the end, they’re operating from false ideas and *do* have an ideology that can interfere with giving good advice or proper support.

  • Spectrall

    I expect that many pastors are actually quite good counselors,

    I’d expect that they’re worse than the average profession at this task. I’d rather ask an accountant or scientist to pick a couple semi-random ones.

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    I agree that they are probably worse (on average) than trained secular counselors. But I think a good many are better counselors than a random person with no training at all.

  • smrnda

    A person who occasionally flips through the Merck manual is better than someone who is totally incompetent when it comes to medical advice, but why go to them when you can go to a doctor?

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    I would not typically advise somebody looking for a bit of personal relationship advice to seek out a professional therapist, just as I wouldn’t advise somebody trying to decide what sort of soap to buy to see a doctor.

  • KrisDStar

    Relationships fall into the realm of psychology, psychiatrists, and counsellors. They are trained in relationships. If you have relationship issues, that is who you should seek out.
    And yes, people who have skin issues do ask what type of soap to by from a doctor. Those doctors are called dermatologists.

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    Relationships also fall in the realm of “ask a friend”. Indeed, they are MUCH more likely to fall into that realm than than they are the realm of professional counselors. Just as the vast majority of people choosing a soap have absolutely no need for a physician’s advice.

  • KrisDStar

    Uhm, no – they just happen to be there by default because of barriers to access to mental health professionals.
    I wonder why then soap companies use dermatologists in adverts to promote their product? And toothpaste companies use dentists in adverts for their product? Maybe because people generally trust professional opinions more than friends?

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    You’d expect experts to develop those products. And you’d expect advertisers to refer to experts.

    I do think we live in a culture that is often overdependent on professionals.

  • KrisDStar

    I doubt we can be over dependant on professionals. We are over dependant on non professionals who claim to have the same knowledge as professionals.

  • onamission5

    Hemant did specify not to take dating advice from *sexist* pastors, rather than from any pastors whosoever.

    edit because tag fail

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    True. But the sexism in this case clearly originates in Christian dogma.

  • guest

    the word “sexist” is already implied.

  • LesterBallard

    “Would anyone care to prove him wrong…?”

    I’d like to stomp his macho ass.

  • baal

    Maybe you’d like to roar theatrically while doing it? Also, bit of a recursive issue but it’s really ‘macho ass’ of you to suggest “macho ass stomping” as a mode of expressing your displeasure with Mark Driscoll.

  • Taz

    You’re right of course. But you know what? I’m with LesterBallard on this one. Some people just piss you off to the point that you wish you could knock them on their ass for the good of humanity.

  • baal

    Then I suggest visiting him in person and not advocating violence to a specific individual in the ether (intertubes). Should some 3rd party take your words to heart and go beat up the pastor, I’d hold you and Lester partially responsible for it.

    Don’t get me wrong, I have no sympathy for that man but stand by my assertion that it’s wrongful to use violent rhetoric.

  • Taz

    “Should some 3rd party take your words to heart and go beat up the pastor, I’d hold you and Lester partially responsible for it.”

    That’s such an unlikely scenario that I can’t help thinking your only reason for mentioning it is to trumpet your own moral superiority.

  • LesterBallard

    No, I don’t want to roar, but I wouldn’t waste time trying to reason with him. You have to speak their fucking language.

  • baal

    I think if you visited his church and picketed out front, he’d get the message.

  • LesterBallard

    Good point. Maybe. But he’d probably just see it as persecution; I say give ’em some real persecution.

  • Rain

    We’ve seen how he lies to and manipulates interviewers that belong to his own religion. So we know he’s full of BS. Only question is, how long before he gets busted for something, and then how long before the gullible flocks forgive and forget lol. Oh wait it already happened at least once.

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    You can decide that God has not come through for you, so you take matters into your own hands.

    Why not? boys between 12 and 98 do that practically every day.

  • sam

    And priests take boys between 6 and 18 into their own hands when they decide that god has not come through for them as well.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    I was about to say the same, but you beat me to it.

  • Rain
  • Richard Thomas

    You better not let Ray Comfort see what you’re doing with those bananas…

  • JA

    Does he still insta-ban people from his facebook page for even mentioning bananas?

  • KrisDStar

    Yes, yes he does.
    First hand experience.

    *ETA: I did also call him Mr. Banana Man, so that probably contributed.

  • suzeb1964

    Reminds me of the old joke “Cucumbers are better than men because…”.
    http://www.jokesandhumor.com/jokes/188.html

  • Stev84

    Because according to Driscoll, masturbation makes you gay.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I would have to disagree with Driscoll based on personal experience.

  • Eivind Drivdal

    Girls too.

  • Randay

    Numbers 1 and 6 refer to the same thing, “Jesus is the Man in your life”. So it wants polyandry.

    Number 3, ” lower your standards”. That is true all of the time. When you choose someone to marry, that is the best you have found up to then. It doesn’t mean you won’t find someone better suited to you later. I have a song running through my head about that, but just can’t remember the title or singer. It is something about you chose me and I chose you because we couldn’t find better. If anyone knows this song, could you post it?

  • sam

    “…he once told his pregnant wife he never would’ve married her if he had known she fooled around in high school.”
    Well, how else was she going to get pregnant, Mark? Surely the trauma experienced by any woman who has intercourse with you is enough to prevent a pregnancy, as that godly representative Todd Akin suggested.

  • KMR

    It’s so easy to prove this guy wrong. It’s so easy to prove anyone wrong when they make such absolutist statements. Why do people insist on doing it? Does this guy like looking like an idiot?

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    How is #5, which Driscoll suggest that the single lady freaks out and literally does everything you can to land a husband possible related to the word ‘Strive’? Did Driscoll just run out of words on his word of the day calendar?

    I am willing to bet that if he had to come up with seven points it would have either be soup or salamander.

  • quasibaka

    #7 : SOUP : You become an Otaku and give up all hope of meeting real men.You sit in your room all day eating canned soup and cup noodles , finding ‘Love’ in dating Sims and trashy romantic novels. Then you use internet pron and mechanical constructs to release yourself . This process continues till youu die an OLD UGLY LONELY UNFULFILLED UNLOVED HAG

  • Spuddie

    That only applies to guys. Women are so rare in geekdom that it’s a smorgasbord for them. The book on how to pick up guys fits on a post it. The trick is picking up non-assholes. That is an art which no pastor can help with

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    “Would anyone care to prove him wrong…?”

    Talk about low hanging fruit. Why not make it interesting? Would anyone care to prove Driscoll wrong using only onomatopoeias, or would anyone care to prove him wrong using a haiku that is also a palindrome?

  • adamaphar

    In my experience, atheists prefer low-hanging fruit when it comes to religion. Or is there a reason why I most often find them contending most often with fundamentalists?

  • Brian

    If I had to guess it would be because fundamentalists are more likely to say/do offensive things. Perhaps I’m misreading the tone of your comment but would you rather see atheists get mad about considerate and moderate religious people?

  • Art_Vandelay

    Atheists usually tend to be humanists and religious fundamentalists tend to be far more oppressive towards humanity than the more moderate ones so it actually makes perfect sense that we would take more contention with fundamentalists. Plus, they’re also more fun to debate with as they actually have some conviction about their beliefs as opposed to the ambiguous interpretations of the moderates.

  • Rationalist1

    You mean why do atheists never pick on Episcopalians or Quakers? They tend not to say or advise stupid things.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Oh yeah, “Oatmeal sucks.” Take that Quakers!

  • Rationalist1

    Sure, but their oil is okay.

  • Gerry Mooney

    I knew it was just a matter of time before someone played the “Oatmeal” card.

  • suzeb1964

    Is Fox News going to start talking about the “War on Oatmeal” now?

  • Wildcard

    Well they did talk about the “War on Panini” so you know. Probably. Proof: http://video.foxnews.com/v/1988694945001/

  • Spuddie

    It’s the only card to play against them. They love the separation of church and state and tend to be on the side of social justice. They are too congenial, dammit!

  • NG

    Exception: Nixon.

  • Spuddie

    Ouch! Missed that one. You are absolutely right.

    I bet the Society of Friends (Quakers official name) have mixed feelings about that one. Sure they had a president, too bad he is one considered the worst of all time.

    That is up there with the fact that the only president who was an Eagle scout was Gerald Ford. The presidency nobody wanted. Least of all by Ford himself.

    But at least the Quakers have a couple of less infamous celebrities
    http://mentalfloss.com/article/17732/richard-nixon-and-12-other-celebrity-quakers
    -Joan Baez
    -Dame Judi Dench

    -James Dean
    -David Byrne
    -The guy who painted dogs playing poker
    and others…

  • guest

    because fundies are much more aggressive when it comes to forcing their antiquated beliefs and superstitions on to others. Moderates are just that, moderate, and don’t cry oppression every time someone fights for equality. But any non-low hanging fruit already knows this and wouldn’t ask such a question.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    They also aren’t amending state constitutions to push their hypocrisy I mean morality on everyone else.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Fundamentalist are usually the one who by force, or by co-opting law, try to get every one to accept their particular view point. Fundies are the politically active. Therefor, they take, and rightfully so, the most flak from atheist.

    As for religious moderates, they usually don’t take much flak because they usually don’t say anything. If you think your religion tells you to accept homosexuals, is ok with evolution, and you think that the church and state should be separate, and that everyone should be allowed the freedom of the conscience. I’m not really going to go after you. Why? Because you are a benign tumor, when there are more malignant parts of society that must be addressed. I still think that your core concept of reality is wrong, but there are bigger assholes to smite.

  • The Starship Maxima

    If only people applied the same standards to poisonous atheist positions…..

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    Which positions would those be?

  • The Starship Maxima

    For starters, the idea that one can know another person’s position on an issue, or part of their position and from there make assumptions about their actions.

    Everyone swears Chick-Fil-A discriminates against gays, in spite of that fact that not only is there no evidence of such a thing, but on top of that, the gays who work there and eat there have stated no such thing happens. This doesn’t stop people from repeating the meme.

    Or, when Sen. Murdoch stated that a child conceived, even by rape, is God’s will and folks turned that into “He said rape is God’s will.”

    Do all atheists hold that position? Of course not. Too many? Yes.

  • Spuddie

    Lying for the Lord is still lying. The owner of Chik-fil-a contributes heavily to anti-gay causes. It is no different from saying someone who makes donations to the KKK supports racism.

    As for Sen Murdoch, that is what he said and meant.

    So your animus against atheists is based on being misinformed? No. You are grasping at straws.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Straws? No, facts.

    I am well aware that Chick-Fil-A donates to groups that oppose gay marriage, as is their right. And I have no problem with someone taking an issue with them based on that because that’s the truth.

    When you create imaginary discrimination against gays, that’s called lying. And it’s wrong when a Christian does it just as when an atheist does it.

    As for Sen. Murdoch. That was not what he said, and I don’t believe that is what he meant. The statement was recorded, it’s not like it can’t be looked up.

    Again, atheists love to pride themselves on truth and logic, and so often, some of them fail at both.

  • Spuddie

    Your omission when it comes to the chicken place undermines the credibility of your statement. Contributing to discrimination is still evidence of discrimination. Your position was inherently reductive to the point of being dishonest. You tailored the definition of discrimination narrow to the point of being ridiculous. As for the senator, that was exactly the intent and purpose behind the statement. It was meant to discount rape and it’s results as an act of god which shoud just be accepted as is.

    If this is the best you got, it’s not impressive. Nothing points to evil athiest belief and at best it is partisan whining

  • The Starship Maxima

    So basically, it’s okay to make up the truth to fit whatever you’d like, rather than go with the truth itself. If that’s what you believe, then I suppose it is pointless to try and debate you further.

  • Fred

    LOL.
    Given some of your previous statements, this is hilarious.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Given some of the crap spouted in this place, I’d call it anything but hilarious

  • Fred

    Then stop spouting crap and half the battle will be done.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I don’t make up half this thread, so that’s not true.

  • Fred

    woosh!

  • Spuddie

    The only one who is misrepresenting facts, omitting key details and trying to put a spin on events is yourself.

    Evidently the Lord doesn’t care how you get to a point. If you have to bend facts to do it, so be it. it is pointless to debate me further because you don’t have a legitimate point to make.

  • The Starshp Maxima

    If you know anything about me you know I shy away from nothing. If the truth is the truth, then for good or ill, that’s what I go with.

    When a biased atheist with an axe to grind, or a fundie with an axe to grind, shows up and carefully slices and dices to get the picture they want. I reject it. Simple as that.

  • Spuddie

    You ARE a biased fundie. You already tried slicing and dicing facts to fit a phony narrative of atheist

    We are getting into some Sophoclean levels of dramatic irony here.

  • The Starship Maxima

    You’re hardly unique in saying “No I don’t do that, you do that.”

    I don’t find that Sophoclean, just tiresome. But please, don’t let that stop you.

  • Spuddie

    Jocasta, what is the cause of this plague in Thebes? As their king, I must do something about it. :)

  • KrisDStar

    Giving money to groups that are there to deny LGBT rights are not “imaginary.” These groups use pseudoscience and fear mongering to oppress and repress LGBT.
    They can spend their money however they want – and I have the right to boycott, and NOT give them MY money to spend. See how that works?

  • The Starship Maxima

    Yes, I do see how that works and I believe I said as much.

  • Anat

    It is people’s right to contribute money to evil causes. It is not their right to do so without being called on it.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Agreed. On a side note, everyone’s definition of evil is different.

  • Anat

    Glad we agree on this point.

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    I don’t pay much attention to CFA as I am in Canada and there aren’t any here. As for Sen. Murdoch, assuming he said that and people said that about what he said, I’m not sure they are wrong. If you have an all-powerful God who, apparently randomly wills conception via rape even though there are much better avenues for such a thing, avenues that He Himself set up thousands of years in the past, then by defintion we, the lowly humans, have no choice but to believe that all rape is God’s will because how are we to tell otherwise? How do we tell rape that’s God’s will from rape that’s not God’s will?

    And if these are the only poisonous atheist positions out there, then I think we’re well on our way to improving our societies.

  • The Starship Maxima

    And therein lie the problem. “The lies you tell are bad, but my lies are okay.” If people believe that we are most certainly NOT on our way to a better society.

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    What the hell are you talking about? I feel like we’re having two completely different discussions on the same thread.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I’m saying that when fundies misrepresent someone’s statements, it’s bad, and should be called out.

    When atheists do it, it is also bad, it’s not the time to start explaining it away. CFA supports discriminatory groups, true. CFA discriminates in the hiring, promotion, and serving of gays, not true.

    Sen. Murdoch believes a rape baby is still precious and it’s God will it lives, true. Sen. Murdoch believes rape is God’s will, not true.

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    I don’t know that anybody suggested they discriminate in those ways, but if they support groups that discriminate, they are at least indirectly supporting discrimination. It’s actually pretty Christian of them. They can turn the other cheek, knowing full-well that their enemies are all going to hell anyway.

    When an omnipotent God actively doesn’t prevent a rape and then wants to force any resulting pregnancy, it is actually the same as that God being okay with rape. You could solve this problem by depowering your God.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Again, I have no problem with someone’s position on that because it is factual and pretty logically consistent.

    Your second statement I find to be a wrong and offensive logical fallacy.

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    I find the idea of hell to be both wrong and offensive. No matter how nice Christians try to be these days, the idea of hell precedes them by a mile, beating everyone it encounters over the head.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Let’s walk you through this. Here’s God’s plan….

    2. Conception
    3. Take the fetus to term.
    4. Have a Baby.

    5. Raise the child.
    6. Child goes to college.
    7. The kid cures aids.

    Let’s work backwards. The kid can’t cure aids, if he doesn’t go to college. The kid can’t go to college, if the kid isn’t raised by his mother. The kid can’t be raised, if his mother didn’t give birth to him. His mother couldn’t have given birth to him, if she didn’t carry him to term. And she couldn’t have carried him to term, if he wasn’t conceived in the first place. And, say it with me, the baby wouldn’t have be conceived if the the mother hadn’t been raped. So the first step in God’s plan here is rape.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    CFA supporting discriminatory groups is discrimination. You don’t get to discriminate by proxy and then say your hands are clean. Saying it’s not is like saying, “Well here at McChicken King, we don’t discriminate, we just give half our money to the KKK, and they discriminate for us.”

    If the baby is God’s will then how the baby was made is also God’s will. Unless, you’re argument is that Sen. Murdoch is so incredible stupid that he literally does not know how babies are made.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    Again, you agree on the substance and only disagree with the strawman argument invented by Fox News etc to negate the actual criticism of CFA. It’s their money and they can spend it however they like, but I’m not giving them my money to spend on anti-gay actions and if you were actually a friend to gay people like you claim you wouldn’t either.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    And therein lie the problem. “The lies you tell are bad, but my lies are okay.” If people believe that we are most certainly NOT on our way to a better society.

    Translated to:
    “I do not understand the difference between a lie and a logical conclusion.”

  • The Starship Maxima

    Personal translation aside. I do know the difference between a FACT and a supposition. And I believe in calling each one what they are.

  • Alexandrine

    Chick-Fil-A hasn’t been accused of actively discriminating against gays, to my knowledge; they’ve been accused of financially supporting organizations whose goals are to discriminate against gays. Which they do.

    And Mourdock said that children conceived from rape are a “gift from God” and therefore should not ever be aborted.

  • The Starship Maxima

    No no, believe me, there were people who claimed there were lawsuits in which CFA had to pay millions for discrimination against gays, blacks, women, etc. When asked to produce evidence of these payouts, you could hear the crickets all the way in Georgia.

    And yes, Murdoch did say children conceived from rape are a gift from God. I don’t get how the innocent child conceived from a rape justifies a heinous and degenerate act like rape. Most people who heard that statement didn’t get that either.

    Like I said, disagree and even hate a position all you want. But be accurate and truthful in why you oppose somebody or something.

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    Citation needed for people claiming there were lawsuits etc.

    Maybe they didn’t get it because it could not be got, because it was so profoundly stupid that nobody could come up with a decent reply.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I’d love to present recorded evidence of all my conversations, but I don’t usually carry my digital recorder.

    And maybe the stupid people were the ones that read a justification in a statement where there wasn’t any.

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    So we are just to accept your word that this conversation that miraculously supports your ideas actually took place? Yeah, that totally doesn’t sound at all like “But, honestly, we have throw all these virgins into the volcano to appease the gods, others you knmow what will happen.”

    How were theystupid? They merely took a statement that’s insane on the face of it to its logical conclusion.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Other, what reason do I have to make up a conversation that didn’t happen? Who are you that I have to make things up?

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    Wow, that escalated quickly. I don’t say you made it up, but you are asking me to believe something on your say-so only. Not only that, but implicitly I’m being asked to accept your interpretation of that. I think not.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    He still doesn’t understand the whole “burden of proof” concept, hence the theism.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    How about google or snopes.com, I couldn’t find any evidence for the wide-spread belief in this law suit.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Perhaps if your Google skills were a bit more sound you’d see where Christine Quinn in New York, Thomas Menino in Boston, and Rahm Emanuel in Chicago all suggested or explicitly stated they’d “keep CFA out of their cities” based on alleged discrimination. It wasn’t until the backlash erupted that they backed down.

    So, while you cannot find evidence of widespread belief in this lawsuit, the greater point, that people didn’t like CFA statements on gay marriage and tried to manufacture evidence of wrongdoing that never was, is accurate.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Oh, for fuk’s sake. They wanted to keep CFA out because CFA discriminates by supporting anti-gay lobbying groups. Not because of alleged employment discrimination. Their statement and actions against gay marriage is discrimination.

  • The Starship Maxima

    And therein is the logical fallacy you and the folks here keep embracing. Your personal philosophy can state that giving to Focus on the Family or the National Organization for Marriage IS discrimination. That’s your right. To a degree, I agree with your logic.

    However, according to the law, they are NOT the same and no amount of repeating it makes it so. A company has the right to give to any non-terrorist group of their choosing. A company does NOT have the right to discriminate against it’s customers or employees.

    Bottom line, there was no legal reason outside of outrage with their pro-traditional marriage stance to deny them a license. Fortunately, these politicians realized that if they’d tried to make good on their posturing they only would’ve lined CFA’s pockets in the resulting legal action.

  • Anat

    Being in line with the law is not sufficient to make one a decent person or make one’s business a desirable one to have in town. If CFA had been discriminating in ways that break the law it would have been possible to charge them. Since they are engaging in discrimination indirectly they can’t, but that is still a reason for people who object to the indirect form of discrimination to not want such a business around. What is so hard to understand?

  • The Starship Maxima

    That is not hard to understand at all. What I can’t figure out is why it’s so hard to understand that what you may “want” and what you can actually “do” aren’t always the same.

    You can boycott any business you like, but you cannot deny them a license or hinder them from setting up shop because you label their exercise of their rights as discrimination.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Ok. Listen very, very closely. Discrimination does not have to be illegal to be discrimination. An action can be legal, and I can still be morally outraged by it.

    CFA, legally supports organizations that promote discrimination. To deny a group of people basic rights, and in the case of organizations like Focus on the Family, advocating that groups of people be arrested, is discrimination. If you can’t see that, well I’m sorry your a shit of a human being.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Perhaps you yourself will read closer and see that nowhere have I disagreed with that statement.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Then do you agree that Chick-fil-a discriminates?

  • The Starship Maxima

    I agree that they support discriminatory policies and work to undermine gay rights.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Then you agree that CFA discriminates. You can’t support discrimination, and not discriminate yourself. That’s not how the english language works. The very act of supporting other people discrimination is discrimination. CFA discriminates against gay people. It doesn’t matter if they do it legal or not. That’s not the issue. The issue is that CFA discriminates.

    (Also as stated, the lack of a lawsuit doesn’t actually prove non-discrimination. The company is headquartered in a state that allows discrimination against the LGBT community. And the local stores are franchises so I am not sure that you could sue the whole brand for individual franchise issues.)

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    “Everyone swears Chick-Fil-A discriminates against gays, in spite of that fact that not only is there no evidence of such a thing,….”

    You’re very first comment was complaining that people claiming Chick-Fil-A discriminates was “a poisonous atheist positions.” Chick-Fil-A discriminates against gay people. Its CEO’s have made public comments degrading gays, and it support groups that fight to keep the LGBT community from equal rights. You were arguing that Chick-fil-a does not discriminate because it was legal for them to do what they did.

  • The Starship Maxima

    The people in this thread make the distinction between what CFA does as it’s own company, and the causes they support.

    Many, many people do not.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    By supporting the causes that they do CFA as a company discriminates.

  • KrisDStar

    You can deny them a license if their hiring practices go against state mandated discrimination laws.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    You know discrimination doesn’t have to be illegal to be discrimination, right? Or would you argue that when Jim Crow was the law of the land, refusing to serve blacks wasn’t discrimination.

    CFA has the legal right to support bigoted groups like Focus on the Family, which has vocally supported the notion of making homosexuality illegal. CFA support groups like Focus on the Family, which has supported bills in Russia and Uganda with makes being gay illegal. CFA money has been spent vilifying gays. CFA money has gone to support organizations that have even argued for sodomy laws in the US. CFA executives have been very vocal about their anti-gay stance. If that isn’t discriminatory behavior, then your definition is utterly useless.

    CFA has the legal right to do so. I have the legal right call it discriminatory. People have the legal right to try to prevent business that support discrimination. It may not be the type of discrimination that gets CFA hauled to court. But, I didn’t say that they ran afoul of employment laws or open access laws.

    (P.S. With the comments made by their CEO, Chil-fil-a head office probably could be sued, however, Georgia law does not protect against employee discrimination based on sexual orientation.)

    Dis·crim·i·na·tion

    noun dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən

    : the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people.

  • Andy Anderson

    “Who are you that I have to make things up?”

    Well, you’ve repeatedly demonstrated that you have a problem with honesty, so yeah, that you’re making stuff up to support your shifting assertions is certainly plausible.

  • SeekerLancer

    I’m sorry you had these conversations but nobody here is arguing that Chik-Fil-A actively discriminates so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

    I’ve got no doubt that you may have ran into people making stuff up, people of all manner of opinions will lie to support their agendas, atheists, Christians or otherwise. But you’re arguing against people who aren’t making the same assertion at all so your rhetoric is just coming off as a strawman.

    Again you’re doing the exact thing that you’re claiming your opponents do. Saying atheists make assumptions about other people’s position while making assumptions about the positions of the atheists here.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Upon further thought, this is true. Perhaps I should’ve made a better point of making that distinction.

  • UWIR

    I’m sure that, in a country of 300 million people, at least one of them claimed that CFA was discriminating against its gay employees. That doesn’t change the fact that you are moving the goalposts from your original claim that “everyone” was claiming that. And even if “every” atheist were saying that, it wouldn’t be an “atheist” position, because there is only one position that is “atheist”: God does not exist. “Position that atheists tend to take” and “Atheist position” are two completely different things. Atheism is, by definition, nothing more than a disbelief in God. The definition of fundamentalism, on the other hand, includes many offensive qualities.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    For that matter I’m sure we could find some idiot who actually said flat out that rape was god’s will. It’s a big country and we have a lot of idiots.

  • The Starship Maxima

    And I would loudly jump down the throat of the idiot who said rape is God’s will. Or the one who said woman can’t get pregnant from rape.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Watch the goal post move, from “Chick-Fil-A discriminates against gays” to ” people who claimed there were lawsuits in which CFA had to pay millions for discrimination against gays, blacks, women, etc.”

    Chick-Fil-a discriminates against gay people because they spend money to make sure that gay people do not enjoy the same basic rights straight people.

    What did Murdoch just think that God poofed the babies into the womb? Did Murdoch think God was looking down, saw the rape and thought, “Shit, I wasn’t expecting that, well I better send her a gift to make up for it.”? If the baby is a gift from God, at the very least, the rape was the wrapping paper. Which still makes it a part of the fucking gift. Worst. Secret Santa. Ever.

  • Andy Anderson

    That’s the thing, though. People here, myself included, don’t believe you.You’re not convincing at all.

  • The Starship Maxima

    And so because I can’t convince biased people like yourself that makes me dishonest? Well, that’s certainly a different brand of logic.

  • Andy Anderson

    No, you’re dishonest because you’re moving the goal posts and expecting us to take your word that bare assertions you make are true. That and your terrible arguments are why you aren’t convincing me.

  • purr

    If there is no rape, there are no gifts.

    Bitches be lucky to victims of rape.

    /snark

  • The Starship Maxima

    That’s not funny. At all

  • purr

    Its not meant to be funny. Its what ‘rape pregnancy is a gift from god’ really means.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Not to me. And not to any sane person I know.

  • purr

    If the woman succeeds in fighting off the rapist, there will be no ‘gift’.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Then you don’t know any sane people. Ask yourself have you ever bought and wrapped a gift for someone without having some method of getting the gift to the person? If the child is a gift, then making the child is logically part of the gift giving processes. If the couple were trying to get pregnant, God-botters would have no problem with the analogy. However, in this case the gift giving method sucks. I mean really, really sucks. If the baby was really God’s gift, for fucks sake, Jesus, use Fedex.

  • Stev84

    There is Cracker Barrel though, which did discriminate against gay employees and which was sued for millions for racial discrimination:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_Barrel#Controversies

  • The Starship Maxima

    And they fucking deserved it. If CFA did the same, I’d be the first one calling for them to be sued.

  • KrisDStar

    There was a suit against CFA, but for sex discrimination. In Georgia, which will be difficult because GA is a “right to work: state. Female manager fired after having a baby to be a “stay at home mom” and replaced with a male.
    They do discriminate, it’s just usually in places where it is too difficult to show cause.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Even if they did active fire people for being gay, they still can’t be sued. CFA is a franchise, based in a state were it is still legal to fire someone for being gay.

    Federal law I think only covers, race, creed, ethnicity, and gender.

  • KrisDStar

    States can cover it also. If it goes against state law, they can be sued.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Georgia doesn’t count sexual orientation or gender identity as protected groups. So I think CFA could fire someone in their headquarters and specifically say it was because they were gay and get away with it.

  • KrisDStar

    No, but GA is just one state in which they operate. They must follow the laws in every state that they operate. If they have a restaurant in MA, and MA does count sexual orientation and gender identity, then they must follow those laws or MA can refuse to issue them a license to operate.

  • The Starship Maxima

    They shouldn’t give a shit what their employees do on their private time any goddamn way. If they are a right-wing, Christian company, then they’re Biblically mandated to pay their employee based on their work ONLY.
    You know, sometimes I say to myself, why are these atheists so hostile. Then something like this pops up and I’m like, oh, THAT’S why.
    This is the kind of crap I mean to put an end to.

  • KrisDStar

    No, they shouldn’t. But some people seem to think that it is their business what other people do – employees or not.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Even if they did active fire people for being gay, they still can’t be sued. CFA is a franchise, based in a state were it is still legal to fire someone for being gay.

    That……is bullshit. It’s a goddamn disgrace that in the 21st century people are so obsessed about adults fucking other adults on their own time.
    In all these arguments, I sometimes forget that horseshit like this still goes down.

  • KrisDStar

    What matters is that he was spending the money we gave him on causes that did harm to the LGBT community. That was the issue.

    Why in the world would god need rape to make babies in the first place? Why would god force a pregnancy in such a horrifically damaging way on a woman?

    But, first you must show that there is a god, before you can attribute it a “will.”

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    Oh and Maxima claims to have gay friends. LOL With friends like that, who needs enemies!

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    Frenemies!

    No, but seriously, I don’t get this. Many of my friends act against things I care about deeply or maintain some values I abhor; it does not make them less my friends.

    I tend to think, except in the extremity of immediate action, friend should not be conflated with ally, and adversary should likewise not be conflated with enemy. Part of the reason that social and political life these days is so epically shitty is that people have blended these categories and act as though conformity to orthodoxies and support in all things and aspects are appropriate prerequisites to friendship. How do you expect your ideological adversaries to change if all the people they’re allowed to be friendly with are people who think like them?

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    First of all, there’s a difference between being friendly and being friends. Second, I don’t have to agree with people about everything in order to be friends. There are a great many things that I disagree with my friends about. But I don’t think that it’s too much to ask that someone who claims to be my friend (not in the Facebook sense of the word but a true friend) believes that I’m entitled to the same rights that he or she takes for granted. I am gay. Someone against gay rights is not my friend. If they think they are, they are delusional. And if they think that I’m okay with their bigotry because I’m not rude to them in a professional situation then they are delusional. I don’t have to like people to work with them. But I certainly wouldn’t consider myself friends with an African American person if I thought they shouldn’t have the same rights as white people, or friends with women while thinking that women shouldn’t have the same rights as men. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. You are entitled to your own opinion, but I have higher standards for friends than that. I am happy to discuss anything with pretty much anyone, but my friends have my back and vice versa. Perhaps we have different definitions of the word “friend”.

  • The Starship Maxima

    And this is where you, and many of the people upvoting and egging on your bias, fail. You assume I’m against your rights. I’m not. I don’t need to agree with your choices to believe in, and defend, your right to make those choices.

    My gay friends, like my friends who’ve had or paid for abortions, or my Catholic friends, or my atheist friends, know that my first loyalty is to the truth, and to freedom.

    Houndentenor, I don’t fear you, or anybody else here. I don’t have to lie to you. If we were face to face, I’d tell you I don’t agree with or condone your sexual or relationship habits. And I’ll welcome you telling me “Fuck you and your opinion. I think your religion is the dumbest thing ever.”

    If someone came to discriminate against you or take away your rights, we’d be right side by side in stopping them. In the same way I’d hope if someone can to take away my rights to freely practice my faith, you’d stand with me.

    Again, this isn’t some shit I have to say so I can get upvotes from people I don’t know. I say it because it’s the truth.

  • baal

    I think the concept you’re fumbling near is ‘politeness’. The whole concept seems erased from society.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    No, that is not what I mean at all, though it is a requisite for what I’m describing. I mean actual friends (and all that implies) amongst adversaries. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia. Niki Lauda and James Hunt. Howard Cosell and Muhammad Ali. People who ferociously oppose each other professionally, philosophically, politically, etc. and possibly have completely incompatible world-views or approaches, and yet who have with one another rich, deep interpersonal relationships that defy (and paradoxically are often strengthened by) their differences and their efforts against one another. A person you may spend your entire day fighting against everything they stand for and value, and then later joke about it over a beer with them, or catch a movie with, or confide in and share life milestones with.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I like you 3.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Claims?? You folks have a rather high opinion of yourselves if you think I have to make up stuff for the benefit of a bunch of self-righteous biased people who only exist a screenname on an atheist site.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    Bigots always seem to have “friends” of the group they want to discriminate against. We never meet these “friends” though. I’m calling bullshit on your so-called friends. I don’t doubt that you know gay people. I just have a different definition of friend perhaps, one in which mutual respect is present.

  • The Starship Maxima

    You say bigots always have these so-called friends that nobody ever meets. True. Bigots also believe that everyone is as intolerant and incapable of agreeing to disagree as they are.

    In either event, you may call bullshit on whatever you like. As I’ve said before, I don’t shy away from calling it as I see it. There’s literally nothing to be gained from lying so that some narrow-minded commenter named “Houndentenor” can upvote my post.

    If my word isn’t good enough, then I guess it isn’t good enough.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    So I’m narrow minded for demanding respect and equal rights and not tolerating any less from my friends? Seriously? I agree to disagree on a whole host of issues, but I have my limits. I am not friends with racists, nor sexists either, by the way.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I realize I kind of blew my top there. I never mean to suggest that I, who as Other points out, am no more than a screenname to you, have the right to tell you who should and shouldn’t be your friends.

    And as I read other posts on Friendly Atheist, I can see why my statements come off as……implausible.

    What I am saying is this. I do have gay friends, and friends of all stripes who don’t buy into my Christian dogma. I realize I can’t prove this to you. But it’s the truth.

    Now, I can accept my beliefs might be offensive to you. Your opinion on my faith is sometimes offensive to me. But we have common goals, and common enemies.

    I mean it when I say I will not tolerate anyone taking your rights or treating you less than a taxpaying American citizen. If we work together, we have a better shot at making homophobia a thing of the past. Again, I know I can’t convince you of this, but I hope, someday, my deeds will prove my statements true.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    As long as you aren’t being rude or condescending to others, your opinions are your own business. I read this someone and can’t remember now who said it (which is too bad), “You’re opinion of my is none of my concern.”

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    The part that you missed is that, to the rest of the people here, you too are nothing more than a screen name.

  • The Starship Maxima

    This is true. It’s just that I don’t question people or doubt it when they mention things that have happened to them, I give them the benefit of the doubt.

    I don’t know why suddenly my statements are pegged as suspect, especially as I haven’t hid from saying things I know will yield dismissive or condescending responses.

  • Fred

    “For starters, the idea that one can know another person’s position on an issue, or part of their position and from there make assumptions about their actions.”

    Welcome to planet EARTH. You must be new here. That’s a nice pile of straw there, what are you going to do with it?

    It must be totally different to pay an organization to hate people for you instead of doing it directly themselves.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I believe the point I was making was that it’s wrong to do that no matter who does it. Which I’ve said multiple times before.
    And you tell me my statements are hilarious??

    And yes, it is different. You can legally give to any non-terrorist group of your choosing. What you CANNOT do is not serve gays, hire gays, deny them health benefits, etc.

    And considering several politicians wanted to “deny CFA a license to operate” based on alleged illegal acts, I say it’s a pretty important distinction.

  • Fred

    LOL, NO. Read 5 posts up and read your own replies.

    The point you were making was that it was a “poisonous atheist position”. To claim that you were trying to say it about everyone is doubly hilarious.

    Suggesting that local politicians want to remove CFA’s license to operate is not an “poisonous atheist position” either.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Okay, that’s true. There’s a heavy correlation, but I was still wrong.

  • KrisDStar

    People know someone else’s position on an issue by that person stating what their position is.
    It’s pretty easy.
    “”I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about,” Cathy said in that interview”
    That is hardly an ambiguous statement.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I tend to think deeds are a better indicator.

  • KrisDStar

    And donating money to hate groups isn’t a deed?

  • idontknow33

    Well, eschatology tends to cause ethics.

    You’ve picked a couple straw men to beat up on here… but the comment you replied to makes a good point.

  • Carmelita Spats

    If we were to tape Murdoch’s mouth shut, he’d fart himself to death. Murdoch did mean that rape is God’s will…If the fetid product of rape is part of God’s will and a blessing, then God took part in the assault as the means to obtain the little semen demon…As the hymn says, “Praise Him from whom all blessings flow”…Hell, the Omni-Benevolent One WATCHES every day as children are assaulted but it’s a-okay ’cause Yahweh has a hankerin’ fer that guldang purpose-driven rape. Besides, Yahweh-the-Yahoo, Murdoch’s rascal Gawd, has NO problem with rape. Rape is not on his list of undesirables if it is part of his purpose-driven plan. Biblegawd is more than a little sad, unhinged and lost…He is a sociopath who is a-okay with torquing female nipples as part of his nefarious little acts of narcissism…Your Imaginary Friend, along with his five thighs and eight eyes, is an accessory to rape…I’d pick a more moral Imaginary Friend such as Captain Underpants…Captain Underpants might sing like a chipmunk on meth but he’s never been an accessory to rape:

    1. Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-Gilead: (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
    2. Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
    3. More Murder Rape and Pillage: (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
    4. Laws of Rape: (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
    5. Death to the Rape Victim: (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 )
    6. David’s Punishment – Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God’s “Forgiveness”: (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
    7. Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
    8. Rape and the Spoils of War: (Judges 5:30 NAB)
    9. Sex Slaves: (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
    10. God Assists Rape and Plunder: (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Chick-Fil-A through WinShape Foundation has donated nearly 2 million dollars to various “pro-family” groups. While the company does not directly discriminate against gay, it does fund those who do. Also they owners is anti-gay. At the time when the shit hit the fan, the outrage was over its perceived support of a Ugandan Bill, that would had made being a homosexual, knowing a homosexual and not turning him/her to the police, or even saying “It’s okay to be gay.” a capital offense. So here’s a question, if your product was being used as a symbol of anti-gay bigotry and indirectly as support to kill gay people, and you knew of it and said nothing, what does it say of your silence?

    Also if the child is God’s will, then the means to make the child was God’s will. Which means that in order for the child to be God’s will, the rape therefor also had to be God’s will. So while Sen. Murdoch didn’t directly say “Rape is God’s will”, he implied it.

  • The Starship Maxima

    “It’s okay to be gay.” a capital offense. So here’s a question, if
    your product was being used as a symbol of anti-gay bigotry and
    indirectly as support to kill gay people, and you knew of it and said
    nothing, what does it say of your silence?

    It would say that I am a coward, at best. A hateful bigot at worst.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    That’s just a lie. No one said Chick-Fil-A discriminates against gay employees. Never happened. But the CEO does donate heavily to anti-gay political groups and still does, btw, in spite of claiming he doesn’t.

    As for Sen. Murdoch. How is that different. If the child conceived is god’s will, why not the rape. Your god can’t stop rape? not very powerful. Can’t even stop children from being raped.

  • Stev84

    One of the big issues with Chick-Fil-A was that the CEO used company money to make those donations. If he had used his private money that would have been another thing. But he made the donations in the name of the company with company funds. That’s something that is often forgotten.

  • invivoMark

    Are you feeling neglected? I’d be happy to contest your beliefs, if it would make you feel better.

  • Mark W.

    With so much low hanging fruit offered by the religious, it’s hard to pick anything above that. But please offer some up if you have it.

  • $84687101

    Fundamentalists are the most dangerous. Also, the funniest.

    But religion offers nothing but low hanging fruit.

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    Wait, are you saying there is high-hanging religious fruit? Medium? That’s sort of new to me.

  • SeekerLancer

    Maybe if those moderates would join us more often in contending with the fundamentalists that make them look bad…

  • UWIR

    In other words, atheists tend to focus their criticism on those most deserving criticism. And you find that odd? What, you think that atheists should criticize all theists, regardless of whether they’re doing anything wrong? Are you seriously complaining about the fact that atheists aren’t prejudiced?

  • Shat shay

    Who are you??? You are hilarious and I want to be your friend.

  • Guest

    Fundamentalist
    Congressmen have some gay sex
    Then say that it’s wrong

  • Guest

    Oh whoops, that’s not a palindrome. FAIL

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    I can’t either.

    I get to the phrase, ‘Nemesis’s is semen’ and get no farther.

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    Isn’t it usually the other way around? The shriek about the evils of gay sex, and then get caught with their hand in some kid’s pants.

  • UWIR

    The having comes before condemning, but the condemning comes before the being caught.

  • Lando

    ” If you take this path, you will eventually come to feel horrible for what you have done and miserable in the world you live’…’and I’ll be right beside you telling you how terrible your decisions were.’

  • Oranje

    I’d love to have a chat with him about my polyamorous relationship if anyone wants to watch his head explode.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Which head?

  • ShhhImReading

    *chortle*

  • Guest

    Because no woman who ever dated casually, had sex just for fun, or lived with her boyfriend before marriage has ever had a lasting relationship:

    If you accept the validity of probability and statistical reasoning (not that I’d want to put a high school math teacher on the spot or something), then Driscoll has a defensible point of view:

    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/08/defining-slut.html

    The virgin bride has an 80+ percent chance of having a stable marriage. Once a woman has had more than one non-marital sexual partner the probability of her having a stable marriage drops to 54%, that’s almost a 50-50 chance of divorce. The statistical threshold is crossed–in other words, your betting on failure–once a woman has had two non-marital partners. Given that the aim of the game is to avoid divorce, from a marital stability point of view, a woman becomes a slut once she has had more than two non-marital partners. It’s not my opinion, it’s probability.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TGkqoY9PtTI/AAAAAAAAALg/MSxuPlpiJow/s1600/Study1

  • onamission5

    Oh look some MRA drivel. Awesome.

    Throwing down a wager on this Guest poster actually being advancedatheist. Any takers?

  • baal

    I’d take the wager. He’s posting a ‘redneckcyrofreak’ or somesuch now.

  • RowanVT

    Ah, I was wondering where he’d gotten to as the AA account hadn’t been posted from for a month.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Except the paper is from the heritage foundation which should throw up red flags from the get-go.

    As for the high school math teacher dig, I assume Mehta knows the difference between correlation, causation, and coincidence, which is something that the Heritage paper’s authors don’t.

  • katiehippie

    Throw up is right.

  • Forrest Cahoon

    Even assuming that paper is accurate, the excerpt you’ve posted could just as easily show that virgin brides are statistically much less likely to leave unfulfilling and even abusive relationships.

  • KrisDStar

    The Psychology of Women book “The Other Half of the Human Experience” would disagree.
    In countries where women have equal access to resources, and there are better social safety nets, and women do not rely on men and marriage as much to climb the socioeconomic ladder – virginity has a lower value. Men cannot demand it, because women do not need the men to provide for them. In countries where women must rely on men more, virginity is placed at a premium, because men can demand it. Women in countries where they are free to climb the social and economic ladders without much interference of men have a higher number of sex partners, get married later, and are usually more educated. Which means they are better able to provide for themselves – so marriage is more of a personal choice, rather than an economic choice.

    And exactly who got to define how many sex partners makes a woman a “slut?” And why is it that those who have a penis are excluded from being “sluts”? And where is the data on how many sex partners a male has had? Or rather, how many sex partners each person has had?

    This is a heteronormative, sex and gender biased “paper” and is hardly reputable.

  • Emsubo

    What a lovely, scholarly excerpt you’ve provided–in which your/you’re is misused and women are referred to as “sluts.” Not even giving the links a click, so I appreciate @Holytape pointing out that it’s from the Heritage Foundation.

  • Spuddie

    Heritage foundation already tags it as bullshit. The aim of avoiding divorce is not one worth pursuing if it means abuse and a marriage which no longer functions.

    Men who want virgin brides are ones who are terrible in the sack and fear women who demand satisfaction from sexual performance. They figure a virgin doesn’t know any better.

  • KMR

    I’ve seen it before along with others, http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/virgin-bride.html. At any rate, it’s interesting although if it’s indeed an accurate correlation I personally think biology is the cause and not any special blessing by God. Not that you can even remotely infer causation though. Too many other factors to consider and anyway divorce rates are going down across the board right now for all groups.

  • UWIR

    “If you accept the validity of probability and statistical reasoning”

    Just because you make a statistical claim in your argument, does not mean that it is statistical “reasoning”, any more than wearing a lab coat while presenting your argument makes your argument scientific.

  • ZeldasCrown

    Ok, so I read through his whole post. He occasionally hits on little nuggets of truth, but then proceeds to twist these little truths in a toxic way. Let me list these bits (there aren’t that many, so I don’t anticipate this comment being like a whole new blog post).

    A.”Sometimes, pulling back from a situation, particularly one that is emotionally expensive for you, helps you see that even though the specific choices you are making are not what you would want, they are the best in light of the options you have.” I agree that taking a step back from an emotionally charged situation can be a good thing. It can help a person re-set, and see things in a different light, and figure out what their next steps should be. However, his advice here seems to be pull back but don’t change anything. If so, then why even take a step back to think things over if the only option open to you after doing so is to keep things exactly the same? All that’s going to do is make you more aware of the problem, and increase your feelings of helplessness in that area.

    B. “You can lower your standards to the point that nearly any guy can meet them. Single men and women are prone to have a list of what they want in a spouse that is way too detailed, long, and unreasonable. But, it is also possible to keep editing your list to the point where “godly man” eventually becomes “believes in a higher power of some sort,” and “I respect him” becomes “I think I can put up with him.” This may get you a man, but not a long-term, joy-filled, God-honoring marriage.” I totally agree that sometimes, a person can build up an image of what they want in a partner that is so idealistic that no real person could ever actually fulfill it. At that point, a person should re-visit what qualities are most important to them in a partner (such as personal values, religious views) and move from there (as in, rather than deciding that any person less than a carbon copy of Captain America need not apply, deciding to search for someone with similar life goals/outlook). But does he actually support re-visiting that list or not? He starts out like he is, but ends as though budging at all to a list composed of your key values will lead to you abandoning your values altogether.

    C. “You can allow your singleness to become the devastating, discouraging, and defining aspect of your life. You can let it make you feel unwanted, unloved, and unworthy.” I agree that obsessing over some aspect that isn’t going according to plan can become an all-consuming mental trap, but he doesn’t give any advice as to what to do should you find yourself here. His only advice is not let this be a tool for Satan to use against you. How about, for example, using your favorite activities (or trying something new) as a way to meet new people (and I don’t mean strictly only new potential romantic partners-new friends as well)/occupy your mind with more positive thoughts/potentially raise your confidence or self-esteem via excelling at something? Cut out negative people who continually harass you about being single, or purposefully make snide comments (if this feeling isn’t 100% internally/self driven). Saying “just don’t do this or else” isn’t helpful.

    His advice pretty much boils down to “just keep doing whatever you’ve been doing (unless you’ve been engaging in actives I don’t approve of, in which case stop and just wait) and if it’s meant to be, God will take care of it”. If someone is asking you what to do, obviously the sitting passively, waiting for something to happen hasn’t worked.

  • Flesh Tuxedo

    Looking forward to him getting busted for adultery in 3…2…1…

  • FlyingFree333

    Christians in the USA have the highest rates of divorce, spousal abuse, infidelity, STDs, abortions and teen pregnancies, so obviously listening to bigoted cult frauds (also known as clergy) is clearly the way to go if you want your life to be an unmitigated disaster.

  • Scott_In_OH

    Others have rightly pointed out that he’s wrong that women who have romantic and sexual partners before getting married can’t have happy marriages, but this also caught my eye:

    You decide to be a gal who parties a lot … or does other things that will really hurt the one relationship you have with a great man: Jesus Christ.

    I used to think the idea of keeping Jesus (or God) at the center of your marriage was profound–if you’re both moving closer to Him, you’re moving closer to each other–but it’s really quite destructive. We would never tell a young couple to each spend their time becoming better and better friends with the neighbors or even with their own children. They need to grow closer to EACH OTHER.

  • baal

    Having an imaginary partner as part of my relationship with my wife or girlfriend would be really awkward and potentially corrosive…who could live up to an imaginary idol that never fails to take out the trash?

  • UWIR

    Jesus has never taken my trash out.

  • Malcolm McLean

    The idea that it’s better to try out someone before making a commitment is a pernicious one. Couples who didn’t live together before marriage have a much lower divorce rate than couples who did.

  • Richard Thomas

    (citation needed)

  • KrisDStar

    You’ve confused “sliding” with “deciding.” Moving from dating to sleeping over to sleeping over a lot to cohabitation can be a gradual slope, one not marked by rings or ceremonies or sometimes even a conversation. Couples bypass talking about why they want to live together and what it will mean.
    Women are more likely to view cohabitation as a step toward marriage, while men are more likely to see it as a way to test a relationship or postpone commitment, and this gender asymmetry is associated with negative interactions and lower levels of commitment even after the relationship progresses to marriage.
    Couples who just happen to move in together without talking about the future, and just wind up moving in together due to convenience are more likely to delay marriage (which isn’t always a bad thing) and divorce. They divorce because they were living together for the wrong reasons in the first place.

  • Ian Gough

    I believe why divorce rates were high to begin with is due to a combination of women becoming more independent (as you stated earlier KrisD the lack of needing men to climb the social or economic ladder) and also that most people were getting married at a young age.

  • KrisDStar

    The unfavorable connection between cohabitation and divorce does seem to be lessening, according to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services.

    2010 survey by the Pew Research Center found that nearly two-thirds of Americans saw cohabitation as a step toward marriage.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/cohabitation-a-step-toward-marriage/

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf

  • Stev84

    It’s also not existent in countries that have higher rates of cohabitation to begin with. So there are clearly other factors at play.

    There isn’t even a prove for causation anywhere. It’s also possible that couples that are more likely to break up for other reasons are more likely to delay marriage or more likely to not give much thought as to whether moving in together is a good idea.

  • http://conticreative.com/ Mario Strada

    Better tell my wife of 27 years that we should divorce as soon as we can.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I’m not sure how one case disproves or proves a trend.

  • Sandrilene

    You’re assuming that divorce is a bad thing.
    What I’d be interested in is a study which shows which couples are happier.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Come to think of it, so would I.

  • Wildcard

    You might not get a majority opinion on that. Lots of people divorce and find love or a better life. Some are happy with their first partner. I think most second marriages are happier than first ones honestly at least in the present.

  • Gehennah

    You don’t always fine someone who is suited for you the first time. I got lucky, my wife is amazing, although I’m her second husband. My mom, on the other hand, it took her 5 marriages to find someone who she is really compatible with, and she’s really happy now.

  • Red-star

    I know it man. My dad and mom were both married twice and it worked out neither time.

  • Malcolm McLean

    Divorce is on its face an admission of failure. The marriage has broken down. Unless something very odd was going on, that wasn;t intended at the point it was contracted.
    You can argue that it’s better to admit failure than to try to patch up something that obviously isn’t working, so divorce isn’t itself bad. But no-one would argue that the events that lead up to the divorce are good.

  • UWIR

    “Divorce is on its face an admission of failure.”

    Nonsense. You’re engaging in circular reasoning: divorce is bad because it’s failure, and it’s failure because it’s bad. If the marriage, overall, brought you more joy than sorrow, then it was a success. You seem to be coming from a point of view that if two people spend a decade happy together, but then find that they aren’t enjoying each other’s company, that’s worse than not getting married at all.

    Every marriage ends eventually. Sure, divorce has a bad reputation, but it’s certainly better than the other way a marriage can end.

    “Unless something very odd was going on, that wasn;t intended at the point it was contracted.”

    Just because something isn’t intended, doesn’t mean it is “failure”. When Joe Montana retired from football, was that “an admission of failure”?

  • Spuddie

    Some marriages never belonged in the first place. Abusive ones. Ones where there really was nothing in common, ones where there is an overall lack of mutual respect. They have no business staying around. Upholding marriage for its own sake is destructive, pointless and only serves to make people miserable. Sticking around because of religious notions is about the stupidest thing one can do.

    Divorce is a common occurrence among those who “save themselves for marriage”. They marry young, don’t know themselves. They don’t know their spouses. Sexual incompatibility is common. They get overloaded with children forcing themselves into life choices they take out of necessity rather than want. A great recipe for a contented life….riiiight.

  • Anathema

    Divorce is on its face an admission of failure. The marriage has broken down.

    If two people sign a contract because that’s what works best for them at the time and then decide to get rid of the contract a decade later because their lives have changed and it doesn’t work for them anymore, is that an admission of failure? It seems to me that it’s merely acknowledging that what worked in the past simply isn’t working anymore. It could only be considered a failure if you expected the contract to last forever. I’m not sure that how long something lasts is really the best measure of its success. It seems to me that how well something works while it lasts is a much better measure of success.

  • KrisDStar

    second marriages have a higher rate of divorce than first marriages. So, there’s that.

  • Spuddie

    Untrue. Couples which married early (as required for premarital chastity) divorced earlier as well. Divorce is not something to be avoided or prevented. Doing either leads to nothing but drama and abuse

  • UnePetiteAnana

    Marrying early isn’t required by premarital chastity. It is probably a result sometimes, but it definitely isn’t *required*.

  • cyb pauli

    Is this a joke?

  • onamission5

    What about couples who have been living together for more than 13 years but never bothered to get married? What’s their divorce rate like?

  • UnePetiteAnana

    I think technically by law they are considered married by year 13.

  • KrisDStar

    Nope. Most states have abolished common law marriage.

  • The Starship Maxima

    So again, their crime is that they give advice to people who subscribe to a set faith, and the advice is consistent with said faith.

    Not seeing the issue here.

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    Well, I suppose we can just not care about the harm done to people because of their faith. You know, just like him. Somehow, that doesn’t quite sit well with me.

  • The Starship Maxima

    People can justify all kinds of unwarranted opinion under the guise “but think about the harm oh noez!” and even get upvotes for it.

    Personally, I don’t think that makes it legitimate, but that’s just me.

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    You know, whether the opinion is wsarranted or not doesn’t make the harm any less real.

  • The Starship Maxima

    This is true. But in the reverse, nonexistent harm is not made more real via strong opinion.

    The bottom line is that the advice is aimed at women who specifically, voluntarily, hold to a belief system. I can think celibacy is kinda impossible, but I’m not going to run to an atheist and shriek about how the Catholic Church advises it’s priests to stay celibate.

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    Voluntarily? You mean like, one day they woke up, all single, alone and cold in their beds and thought, “Hmm, whom shall I take relationship advice from? I know…” I don’t think you grasp the power of the Dark Side and the hold it has on people from their childhoods.

  • The Starship Maxima

    And I don’t think you get to decide who’s following a faith because they’re indoctrinated and who follows it by choice.

  • Fred

    Anyone who answers a question with, “because magic” or “my magic tells me….” or “you make a good point, however I’m guided by my magic” it’s a serious sign that they’ve been indoctrinated.

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    Yeah, sure, and many Muslim women wear the burka with only a pair of slits for eyes because they choose to.

  • KrisDStar

    You first have to prove that there is no harm.
    Considering that many religious people stay in marriages that are physically and psychologically harmful because of fear due to their religion is harmful. For the couple, and for any children in that marriage.
    Also, telling someone that they won’t find a suitable partner because of some random, unsubstantiated claim can cause that person to accept a less favorable relationship due to not knowing that there and will be better options later. That is also harmful.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    “You first have to prove that there is no harm.”

    You first have to prove there is no God.

    “Considering that many religious people stay in marriages that are physically and psychologically harmful because of fear due to their religion is harmful.”

    Wait, wait. Someone else here spouted off at the mouth that it’s Christians who divorce more than … well, I’m assuming non-Christians?

    “Also, telling someone that they won’t find a suitable partner because of some random, unsubstantiated claim can cause that person to accept a less favorable relationship due to not knowing that there and will be better options later. That is also harmful.”

    Driscoll never said that — he said that a godly woman wouldn’t feel better for having slept around or whatever.

  • KrisDStar

    I don’t have to prove that something does NOT exist.
    You must prove that it does.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    I’m well aware this is a common atheist argument, which is why I said what I said.

    “You first have to prove that there is no harm.”

    Contradictory much?

  • KrisDStar

    It’s not an argument. It is a fact.
    If I state that there is a leprechaun that lives in my yard, do you automatically believe me, or do you require some kind of proof?
    Shifting the burden of proof gets you nowhere.

  • baal

    Then I find you grossly immoral. For me, assessment of harms is the first and most important step in moral reasoning. The second is consideration of context and third is justification for some harms based on the context.

  • Red-star

    People can also dismiss any harm because it isn’t done to them.

  • Wildcard

    You don’t see the problem with “If you don’t follow this advice you’ll hate yourself?” It’s guilt tripping in the extreme. It’s like a man who chooses to only have casual relationships giving advice saying all marriage is miserable to live through.

  • tyler

    it doesn’t bother you in the slightest that the advice described here is incredibly toxic regardless of the particular faith you subscribe to…?

  • UnePetiteAnana

    Thank you.

  • Spuddie

    The advice is crap regardless of faith.

    You are implying that faith makes women prime candidates for abuse, worthy of shaming tactics, and useless unless they can be pleasing to a guy who makes empty gestures about faith.

  • UWIR

    Mehta clearly identified problems that he had with the advice, beyond merely the fact that it was faith-based. Liar.

  • Nichelle Wrenn

    I think my godless, married, never divorced parents might have a few pointers for Mr. Driscoll. After all my folks have been at this marriage thing for 28 years, without taking marriage advice from a book with pointers on how to sell your daughters into slavery. (Exodus 21:7-11)

  • Stev84

    Why is anyone still surprised at anything that sociopath says?

  • idontknow33

    I’m predicting Driscoll will lose it one day. He seems so filled with rage and hatred.

  • Daniela Davison

    You do not understand what it is like to be a woman with a moral conscience. Men have so little too lose by having casual sex, yet a woman’s life is easily drastically changed by such a decision. Yet men continue to assume that woman can (and want) to treat sex so nonchalantly. This pastor is RIGHT when he says that woman regret their past meaningless hookups, especially when they do meet a guy who finally respects them. I have never met another girl (and I am a college-aged woman) who says that she doesn’t regret any of the “hookups” she participated in. Even if a woman in pro abortion and thinks that abortion is okay and can “erase” any pregnancies, that rarely means that she WANTS or would be emotionally unchanged and unshaken by an abortion. So even prochoice woman have a lot to lose when they engage in casual sex.

  • baal

    “any of the “hookups”
    Wrong question. The question is whether or not they’d change their past to have skipped all their sexual experience up to that point. If let’s say they had 10 ‘hookups” and 4 were regrettable experiences, that doesn’t mean they would have skipped out on the other 6 if they knew the ‘cost’ was the 4.

    I’ve yet to met any “pro abortion” women who think it’s okay to “erase” a pregnancy. They are more thoughtful than that glib phrasing and I don’t know folks who see abortion as a means of birth control.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    You obviously didn’t read the comment section from the “Is it Possible to be Prolife and an Atheist” blog post.

  • Spuddie

    He contributed to it, as did I. Nobody said anything to that effect. There were a lot of people who mistook empty moralizing for public policy. Like yourself I would guess.

    Those who think women should defer their decisions to the authority of self-righteous narcissists who “naturally” know better as to making private personal decisions affecting their lives. Not the type I see among atheists.

  • katiehippie

    “you will eventually come to feel horrible for what you have done and miserable in the world you live” No, I was the ‘good girl’ and did everything he said, and guess what, I feel horrible and I’m miserable. Life doesn’t work like that. These Christians try to say “act like this and life will turn out perfect for you” Bring on the past meaningless hookups.

  • Gehennah

    My wife doesn’t seem to regret it. She admits that some of them were mistakes, but not all of them were.

    And I actually think having sex with only one person your entire life can be detrimental to yourself. Without some experimentation, it can be very difficult to figure out what you want, thereby limiting yourself. This is also why I honestly don’t support “waiting until you are married” since just because you are dating someone, that does not mean you are sexually compatible with them.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    It’s too bad that experimentation can lead to emotional connections to horrible people.

  • Anat

    It is too bad that lack of experimentation can lead to missing opportunities of meeting and forming relationships with wonderful people. It is also too bad that lack of experimentation can lead people to not realize the person they end up with is not good for them, for lack of comparison.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    You don’t have to have sex with someone to form meaningful relationships.

    Marriage isn’t about what you can get, it’s about what you can give. Sure, sex in marriage can be unsatisfying but marriage isn’t just about sex … just like relationships aren’t just about sex. This whole “try it out before you buy it” mentality is something that is horribly misunderstood.

  • KrisDStar

    Sex, for most people, is a large part of a relationship. Two things that couples frequently have issues with: money, and sex.
    Sex is beneficial in so many ways, psychologically and physically.
    No relationship has to be just about sex, but there is nothing wrong with sex being a part of a healthy relationship.

  • RowanVT

    So you think that I should have stayed with my ex-fiance, and just accepted painful and emotionally dissatisfying sex? You honestly think that is *good* for a relationship to have one partner be desperately unhappy?

  • Gehennah

    You are correct, you don’t have to have sex with them. But sex is (or can be) a wonderful bonding experience, or just fun and feel great. And knowing what you like and don’t like is very important. Plus as RowanVT and myself has stated, some people are not sexually compatible. I’ve been in one, and if my ex and I had got married before we found out that we weren’t compatible would have ended up causing some damage to our marriage. And instead of putting ourselves through the unneeded stress of a sexless marriage, we decided that it would be better to stay friends and find someone else.

  • Anat

    While marriage isn’t about sex, if one entire aspect of it simply does not work people end up being miserable for years on end.

  • KrisDStar

    Says who? Everything is based on the negative. She may have made many more significant good connections. Her husband being one of them.

  • Artor

    It’s still better than getting hitched to a horrible person without experimenting first to get the experience to tell ahead of time.

  • cyb pauli

    Birth can also lead to emotional connections to horrible people.

    Marriage can lead to emotional connections to horrible people.

    Platonic friendship can lead to emotional connections to horrible people.

    Studying at a university can lead to emotional connections to horrible people.

    Going to church can lead to emotional connections to horrible people.

    Working in a bookstore can lead to emotional connections to horrible people.

    The message is clear: abstain from life.

  • Gehennah

    And it can also lead to you actually discovering what you like, and what you don’t like. It can also lead to some amazing relationships, even if some of them end up not being romantic.
    Is there risk involved? Yes, but there is risk involved in me getting into my car every day and driving to work. There is risk of me opening my door when someone knocks on it. This doesn’t mean I should stay at home and become a shutin because of risk, because then you end up not living your life.

  • RobertoTheChi

    I don’t regret any of my “hookups” as you put it.

  • wialno28

    “You do not understand what it is like to be a woman with a moral conscience.”

    I do. I am a woman with a moral conscience.

    “This pastor is RIGHT when he says that woman regret their past meaningless hookups, especially when they do meet a guy who finally respects them.”

    He may be right about you. He is not right about me. My past sexual experiences were not all profoundly meaningful. However, they meant something to me at that moment, and I would not take back those experiences if you gave me the chance.

    “I have never met another girl (and I am a college-aged woman) who says that she doesn’t regret any of the ‘hookups’ she participated in.”

    All this means is that your social circle is not representative of all women. I only graduated from college five years ago, so we are probably close to the same age. I don’t know any women who have the level of regret you describe. Did some of us make poor choices in partners at times? Yes, of course. Human beings are imperfect. But none of us have the life-altering sense of shame this pastor seems to think must result from pre-marital sex.

    “Even if a woman in pro abortion and thinks that abortion is okay and can “erase” any pregnancies, that rarely means that she WANTS or would be emotionally unchanged and unshaken by an abortion. So even prochoice woman have a lot to lose when they engage in casual sex.”

    I am pro-choice, but I have never been pregnant. Male condoms plus my own birth control (pills, ring, shot, IUD, etc. – I’ve been on them all) keep me pregnancy and STD free. I know women who have gotten pregnant, chose birth, and are happy with their decision. I know women who have gotten pregnant, chose abortion, and are also happy with their decision. They are not emotionally changed and shaken, but relieved and content. Anything they lost (time, travel expenses, etc.) was due to anti-choice activism that has made it harder and harder in recent years to get the proper medical procedure to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

    tl;dr: You’re projecting. Stop pretending your limited experiences apply to all women everywhere.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    The fox who longed for grapes, beholds with pain

    The tempting clusters were too high to gain;

    Grieved in his heart he forced a careless smile,

    And cried ,‘They’re sharp and hardly worth my while.’

  • UnePetiteAnana

    Except that grapes hardly create an emotional connection … you know, like sex.

  • Anat

    Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. And even if it does, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Too much avoidance of pain leads to avoiding important chances for growth. Focusing too much on avoidance of pain risks living a life that is too ‘flat’ to be worth the while.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    This is a very lackluster explanation and I don’t buy it.

    It’s so funny to me that atheists are all about “God isn’t loving because he allows pain … therefore he doesn’t exist” yet in another context atheists (and people in general) will resort to the pain=growth argument.

  • cyb pauli

    It’s so funny because God could provide the growth without pain and chooses not to. As an atheist I must accept pain as part of my existence and try to learn from it because I am not an all-knowing or all-powerful being. My ability to learn and grow from negative experiences does not let your God off the hook for all the pain he ignores.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    I completely agree, God *could* have provided growth without pain but He’s chosen not to. But does that negate His existence? Not in the least. In fact, it seems like you’re saying that you might can concede there is a God but at this time you’re choosing to believe He doesn’t exist because of His methods (for lack of a better term).

    At any rate, pain *does* exist in the Christian’s life and the atheist’s life. Our experiences can be classified on a spectrum of “happy” or “painful”. The Bible explains that God has His hands in all affairs; is it possible that without God’s hand in all affairs that the spectrum would sit much lower – is it possible that there exists an evil outside of our own experiences that we have never known?

    I’m not saying that people shouldn’t question God’s existence but it doesn’t do much good to conclude He doesn’t exist based on His character.

  • Anat

    As I said, it negates the existence of omnimax god. If a god exists, and said god created a suboptimal universe then said god either lacks the potence to do better or the benevolent will to do so. Either too weak or too malicious.

  • RowanVT

    Actually, if God is supposed to be infinitely loving, then pain shouldn’t exist. There are ways to learn and grow without experiencing pain or harm first.

    Atheists can concede that there might be some sort of deity, but the one called “God” that is found in the bible does not.

  • Anat

    You are misstating the argument from evil. It isn’t an argument for the non-existence of deities in general, it is an argument for the non-existence of a deity that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Because such a hypothetical deity could have created humans that do not benefit from pain and do not experience pain and live meaningful lives despite that.

    But my argument wasn’t that pain itself is good, only that in the world we live in it is a good idea to take some risks, because the risk-averse life has few and small rewards. You can avoid risks and collect the emotional consolation prizes or get all in, suffer occasionally, and other times win big.

  • RowanVT

    Sex doesn’t always create an emotional connection, even when you want it to.

    I was engaged once. The young man and I were not sexually compatible *physically* but I tried because I wanted that emotional connection, especially when I began realising that I was starting to fall out of love with him.

    What I ended up with was 5 years of absolutely no sex drive because nothing about sex was appealing to me. It didn’t feel good, plain and simple. And because it felt like duty sex, there was absolutely no emotional connection formed on my part.

  • cyb pauli

    *zing*

  • UWIR

    “You do not understand what it is like to be a woman with a moral conscience.”

    The “woman” part applies just as well to Driscoll. The “moral conscience” part is you mistaking indoctrination for “conscience”. Just because someone doesn’t follow the same religion as you doesn’t mean they lack a conscience, and just because you don’t like something, doesn’t mean your dislike is due to your conscience.

    “yet a woman’s life is easily drastically changed by such a decision.”

    Men get STIs. Men can be held financially responsible for a pregnancy. So that leaves… what, shame? The shame comes from indoctrination, not the sex itself.

    “Yet men continue to assume that woman can (and want) to treat sex so nonchalantly.”

    Respecting women enough to take them at their word is not “assuming”. You don’t want to treat sex nonchalantly? Then don’t. But there are plenty of women who have declared through their words and actions that they do want to do so, and trying to tell them that they have not properly perceived their own feelings is incredibly condescending.

    “I have never met another girl (and I am a college-aged woman) who says that she doesn’t regret any of the “hookups” she participated in.”

    If I understand your triple negative correctly, you’re saying that every woman you’ve met regrets every hook up she’s engaged in. If that were true, why would any woman engage in more than one? The very fact that a woman participates in a second one suggests that she doesn’t regret the first one. But why draw on women’s actual actions to determine how they feel about their decisions, when we can consult a man?

  • Daniela Davison

    “If I understand your triple negative correctly, you’re saying that every woman you’ve met regrets every hook up she’s engaged in.”

    Actually I meant that all of the girls I have met who have had hookups regret at least some of them (not all) , which is indication of the fact that “hookup culture” is not so fun, carefree, and inconsequential as some would paint it.

    By the way – I do agree with you that a man’s life can also be drastically effected by casual sex, but definitely not as much as a woman’s.

    As for the charge that I am “indoctrinated” and “trying to tell woman that they have not perceived their own feelings correctly” – sure, there are some women who dont regret any of their casual hookups. But these woman are a minority, if anything (based on my experience, discussing such matters with my girlfriends, who are of all different religions, backgrounds, etc I assure you).

    It is ironic how I am accused of forcing my opinions on (imaginary?) other woman who enjoy being treated like sexual objects instead of valuable friends, when this entire post consists of the author deliberately searching out an article written for women who want to be sexually valued by one, true love (because that does exist!) instead of tossed around from guy to guy without any serious commitments, and proceeding force HIS opinions on it. Lets do ourselves a favor, this is the internet, if no one is allowed to pass judgement well then hell we had best not type at all…

  • KrisDStar

    Having regret about some things does not negate all the things. Maybe it was regret about the particular person the hookup was with, rather than just that it was a hookup.
    Either way – some people’s regret does not get to be the defining or deciding factor for anyone else.
    A woman regretting an abortion does mean that all other women should not be able to have the same choice.
    Regretting a marriage does not mean that nobody else should ever be married.

  • Malcolm McLean

    I know what you mean.Unless you say that “the State makes all decisions” some people are going to do things they later regret. However some things, like drug use, casual sex, abortion, tend to create more regret than other. Whilst most people go through some stages of regretting their marriage, it tends to blow over, the tensions ease, they’re happy once more to be married to that person.

  • KrisDStar

    The level of regret is personal, and in no way should affect someone else’s personal choice.
    It does not tend to “blow over.” There are marital problems that are not worth fixing, and the best choice for everyone involved it to divorce and move on.
    I’m pretty sure that IPA doesn’t just “blow over.”

  • Sandrilene

    A hook up is not treating someone like a sexual object.
    Lying to someone is treating them badly. If someone is upfront and honest about just wanting casual sex they are not doing anything wrong.

  • cyb pauli

    Let’s be clear about this: legal monogamous and polygamous marriage as traditionally practiced is no more innocent of treating girls and women as sex objects than non-marriage sex.

    Using that canard is like saying “I dont want to be one of those athletes who plays soccer, athleticism is demeaning. I’ll play hockey instead.”

  • Sandrilene

    No actually. I regret not having sex sooner.
    You are playing into disgusting sexist sterotypes. It’s the 21st century and contraception is easily available. Let’s move on from slut-shaming.

  • Anat

    There are women who treasure their hookups fondly while enjoying later relationships. I am one of them. There are women who are capable of having more than one meaningful sexual relationship in their lifetime. You have a very limited view of women.

  • Ella Warnock

    Quite frankly, you’re awfully young, Daniela. That doesn’t render your experiences invaluable, of course, but there’s an awful lot of life you haven’t lived yet and a hell of a lot you don’t know about relationships. I have some regrets, but none of them are in the sex or relationship department.

    Nobody’s going to make it out of this life without some regrets; I doubt sexual ones are really materially much different than any others. I know a little bit about being fearful of things that I should not have been fearful of. The fears, not the actions themselves, are what caused the most regret.

  • purr

    Women only feel regret because holier than thou people such as yourself go out of your way to shame them.

  • Guest

    Actually, now that I am married (and have been for quite some time) I regret that I didn’t have sex with the people that I wanted to because I was fearful of..getting a reputation as a slut. But now, I see that it wouldn’t have mattered. I regret the sex I didn’t have, not the sex I did have.

  • Gehennah

    Wow, my wife must be completely miserable. Not only has she dated more than 1 person in her life, and slept with more than one person in her life, she’s also been married before me, gasp.

    Maybe she is just hiding her suffering and horrible feelings under her smiles, laughter, enjoyment of life, and the many accomplishments she has made in her life.

    And I’m sorry, if I ever told my wife that her being pregnant is the only reason I’m staying with her because she had been with other men, I’d deserve to be slapped.

  • Malcolm McLean

    If you’ve got a string of failed relationships behind you, that doesn’t give you confidence that the current one will prove to be anything special. Most people however put on a brave face, especially with those they don’t really trust. To show weakness is very dangerous.

  • Anat

    Not all break-ups are failures. Some relationships are good for one stage of life but not another. That’s why there are those couples that break up but the people involved remain close friends.

  • Gehennah

    Out of all of my relationships, I only had two nasty breakups, most of the rest were fairly mutual. We enjoyed each other but there was no emotion (or in two cases, someone moved). So I wouldn’t call those a failure. And even the ones that I had with nasty breakups, I learned a bit. So I wouldn’t even call them a failure.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    Gehennah, Mark and Grace were dating during the time Mark is referring to. You mean to tell me he’s the only person on the face of the earth that would regret marrying someone who cheated on him?

  • Gehennah

    Then my apologies in that aspect.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    Driscoll makes is clear at the beginning that he isn’t talking to godless people. He’s talking to “godly single women” and that’s it. He’s also not saying that all of this is specific to just women, either.

    Of course there are people out there that won’t feel miserable after sleeping with more than one partner; he’s admittedly not talking to those people (I’m sure there are Christians who have slept around and probably won’t feel guilty immediately), but talking to women who subscribe to abstinence before marriage.

    Hemant, you also imply that Driscoll is saying, “Because no woman who ever dated casually, had sex just for fun, or lived with her boyfriend before marriage has ever had a lasting relationship.” He didn’t say that. *Probably* the majority of the females at Mars Hill are women that did just that … except they aren’t doing that now.

  • Artor

    He’s also not saying that all of this is specific to just women, either.

    LOL! Find me ONE example of Driscoll saying anything like this to men. Go ahead, I’ll wait anxiously for your response.

  • RowanVT

    It’s been almost a full day and no examples are forthcoming… I do sooooooo wonder why that is…

  • UnePetiteAnana

    I didn’t say that he had actually said this to men – I said Driscoll didn’t say that none of this applied to men. There’s a bit of intuition that needs to happen when you’re reading something Artor.

  • Artor

    Intuition? You mean reading what you want to see into something? No thanks, I try to base my conclusions on facts as they are presented, rather than making shit up so I can feel better. The fact is that Mark Driscoll has shown himself to be a misogynistic moron over and over. And you have shown in your own posts that you have piss-poor reasoning skills. I don’t think I’ll be taking advice on interpretation from you.

  • Joe Ateo

    2 questions…Why does an all-powerful, omnipotent god concern himself with sex amongst humans so much? And why do women feel the need to defend the bible, when they’re considered 2nd class in it?

  • Spuddie

    Answers to your questions:

    1. Sex makes God giggle. Its a big joke to him.
    2. Stockholm Syndrome

  • Gehennah

    This.

  • Daniela Davison

    I am going to be avalanched by a torrent of contrary opinions, but this is the Atheist channel, and its 1:30 am…: D

    1.God cares about all parts of human life – it is part of His love. And sex is an area of your life which can be very beautiful, and a way to grow closer to God and to love this life which He has given us. But it can also destroy people – what with abortion, loveless lust, abuse…God cares about that.

    2. I am not considered “2nd class” by God. Sure their are some crazy preachers who twist the Bible to fit their own ideas about gender roles. Men and woman are equal in value, but they are different – and all are loved by God.

    There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ~ Galatians 3:8

  • KrisDStar

    You must first prove there is a god before you give it attributes of caring, love, etc.

    “You buttered your bread. Now sleep in it! ”
    Jiminy Cricket
    (see, I can quote fairy stories too!).

  • Daniela Davison

    i was mainly trying to answer the above comment, which assumed the existence of God.
    Check out Aquinas’s First Mover Principle.
    in the end, I dont have any conclusive evidence that will force you to believe in God. Only hints and thats all anyone has. “Lumen Fidei” It comes down to Faith, really.
    Morality can be argued about with logic alone (to some extent, at least) though.

  • KrisDStar

    And faith is nothing.
    I can have faith that I’ve won the lottery. But without the evidence to support it, I won’t get a dime.

  • Spuddie

    1. You speak of sexual relations in the theoretical sense. As someone who lacks actual knowledge of it but is idolizing such things. If you can understand its beauty from the point of actual knowledge, you can also recognize it as messy, slightly ridiculous and not the business of anyone outside the boudoir.

    2. Your clergy and culture beg to differ. They do not value your intelligence, independence, privacy or any personal desire to be something besides a trophy, cheap domestic servant, or brood cow.

  • RowanVT

    Equal but different is not equal. I thought most of English-speaking humanity at least had learned this by now.

    How is that I have equal value when my value is centered on my vagina and how many penises it has had in it and how many babies I’ve pushed out of it, whereas a man’s value is centered on who he is, how he acts, how he thinks…..

    Men are people, women are incubators. Men are people, women are property to be bartered.

    There is no equality when I am treated so very differently from a man.

  • cyb pauli

    Abortion, loveless lust and abuse all happen in the context of marriage. Monogamous heterosexual marriage has saved a grand total of zero women from abortion, loveless lust and abuse.

  • Gehennah

    What does abortion have to do with marriage? What does abuse have to do with marriage, or loveless lust? All of these things happen with or without a marriage, with or without a belief in Christianity or Christ. And I’d argue that your god doesn’t care about it, because he doesn’t lift a finger to stop things like abuse from happening. One big difference between me and your god, is that if I saw someone beating someone else, I’d do what I can to stop it.

    And women are treated like property in the Bible. If a man defiles a woman (or rapes as some read it) you simply pay off the father and marry her for damaging the goods. Women aren’t supposed to have a voice in the church. I see this as being second class.

    It seems that the Bible tends to treat women, as others have stated, as baby factories and not much else.

  • allein

    I almost didn’t get past “friends of Grace and I”…

  • UWIR

    “These are women who are friends of Grace and I”

    These women are friend of he? I don’t understand why so many people have trouble with basic grammar.

  • Whitney Currie

    I was going to be good. Really, I was. Just an FYI, you might want to have the kids/sensitive adults/the overly uptight people out of the room.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/mary_roach_10_things_you_didn_t_know_about_orgasm.html

    Make sure you watch the video, it’s fascinating.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    So wrong. So so so wrong.

    Slept with several guys before meeting my current-husband. Cohabitated with him (not chastely!) for several years before we got married. Granted, we’re pretty young, so saying we’ve been married almost five years doesn’t sound very impressive, but we still have a happy relationship.

    Oh, and I’m still very good friends with one of the guys I slept with before I met DH. That guy is married to a woman who I probably would have tried to sleep with were I not in a relationship with DH. DH’s best friend is a woman he slept with before he met me. No regrets.

  • Artor

    It sounds like you have a lot of love in your life. Good on you! And Happy Holidays!

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Thanks! I do. I’m very lucky. And Happy Holidays right back at you.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    Yep, sounds like no regrets given that you’ve stockpiled this information and have it ready to disseminate.

  • Anat

    ‘Stockpiled’???? What Feminerd wrote looks like the sharing of normal memories of someone who is alive and accumulates experiences.

  • RowanVT

    Simple memory now to forever be referred to as “stockpiling”.

    I’ve stockpiled all this information on species-specific drug reactions!
    I’ve stockpiled the names of all my foster animals!
    I’ve stockpiled the location of the fugly purse for my annual holiday grab bag!
    I’ve stockpiled the order of my preferred brands of cat litter!

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    You mean I took the what, five minutes?, to type it out. Clearly I have stockpiled basic information about my life and friends to use purely as a weapon against people who are hung up on sexual purity, instead of merely sharing some small bits of information about my life in specific answer to a challenge in the blog post above us.

  • Gehennah

    Five years is pretty good, congratulations. Really love to hear that you are still friends with at least one of your ex’s.

    And best of all, as you said, no regrets.

    Quick question, DH? Dearest Husband?

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Yeah. Or Dear Husband, seen it both ways.

    DD would be Dear Daughter, and DS is Dear Son, while DW is Dear Wife though I rarely see that one simply because that particular abbreviation seems to have caught on mainly in parenting and pregnancy/childbirth circles, which have a lot of hetero women posting.

  • Gehennah

    Thanks, still learning the abbreviations and want to make sure that I’m understanding everything correctly :)

    If I saw DW I’d be wondering why someone would be dual wielding something (sorry, gamer here).

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    No worries, me too! Though in Pathfinder, I use TWF (two weapon fighting), so it’d be 2h, 1h, or TWF.

  • Gehennah

    Never did pathfinder. With Pen and Paper it was always VtM or my favorite, ShadowRun. And I think they both use the term dual wielding.

    But on WoW, EQ (where I met my lovely wife), EQ2, and every other MMO I played, it’s usually been DW.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Tis true, DW is the term I’ve seen in the MMOs I’ve played. I played D&D 3.5 as my first tabletop RPG, and the terms have stuck even though I’ve played all sorts of other games now. Pathfinder, obviously, but also Mongoose Traveller and Shadowrun and the new Star Wars and L5R and even a bit of Yggdrasil.

  • Gehennah

    Too bad you’re in Texas, my wife and I have been trying to find someone to play some pen and paper with. Although I’m starting up a new SR campaign online soon since I can’t find many locals.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    I’d be up for trying an online campaign. I had some success in the past with Google hangouts- I even have a webcam for just that purpose! And Google hangouts actually has a really cool gaming and dice app built in.

    Which edition of SR? The new one, 5th?

  • Gehennah

    Yeah 5th, I don’t have the books just yet, but wife is getting them for me for Christmas.

    I’ll have to check out the hangout stuff, I normally do Vent or Mumble and use roll20.net if I recall the site correctly, where we can draw maps and everything, plus it has its built in dice too.

    I’ll let you know if it looks like it will get off of the ground.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Cool. Thanks.

  • ichuck7

    My wife is a Christian and I am not. We both agree living together was far and away the best plan for us. We don’t have any regrets.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    I’m sorry, your own experience does nothing to “prove that wrong.” Mainly because you’ve only had one experience and you wouldn’t know the experience of not living together before marriage. Describing your living-together-before-marriage experience as “far and away the best plan” is completely relative. Do you think your wife and you would still be happy having not lived together before getting married? You probably would because you *are* happy now. Also, how long have you been married? Do you think in 10 years you will still be happy? If you’re not happy in 10 years, do you think you could still uphold the idea that living together was far and away the best plan?

    I would also argue your wife’s Christianity, not because I’m judgemental but because of what Christianity subscribes to. She may label herself Christian, but do you hear/see her pray at all? Does she go to church at all? Did she become a Christian after you were married?

    I realize the obnoxious-ness of my comment here but you’re so sure you’re happy and living together definitely proves Driscoll wrong. At best, your marriage is an exception.

  • ichuck7

    Thanks for keeping me honest. I edited my comment accordingly.
    I do have an issue with your skepticism of who is a Christian. Who are you to say?
    Furthermore, how do you know our marriage is at best an exception?
    She’s been a Christian her whole life.

  • Gehennah

    You are right, it is only his experience. But living together, I find, to be hugely beneficial. I wish my wife and I had lived together prior to marriage (although it was impossible, she was in Alabama, I was in the Marines in California, and it wasn’t feasible prior to marriage). Because if we had, it would have made the transition into marriage a whole lot easier as we’d learn about each other’s quirks faster and would have known about them beforehand.

    But that is in the past now.

  • KrisDStar

    I doubt it is the exception, since the number of people who are cohabiting before marriage has significantly risen.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    I love how all the big threads of comments here (and other largely followed posts on this blog) always end up refuting … well, nothing at all. It’s like the Hitler Phenomenon: all arguments lead to Hitler. All these arguments on this atheist blog end up with a bunch of relativism that means nothing at all.

    There’s so much relativism within atheism that if you all took a second to think about it, you’d realize your lack-of-faith has lead you to faith in relativism. Oh the irony.

  • chrisalgoo

    That was quite the impressive word salad.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    “Which I guess he’s qualified to give since he once told his pregnant wife he never would’ve married her if he had known she fooled around in high school.”

    What Hemant is negelcting to say is that Driscoll and his wife were dating at the time of her fooling around.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    Just so you know, I don’t think this makes Grace some horrible awful person. She cheated on him and didn’t tell him. You’re telling me no one here would have second-guessed things at this point?

  • RowanVT

    From someone in *High School*, when you’re still very young and exploring who you are? Nope. If that was still done as someone in their early 20s, then yes.

    Or if you know, you could ask things like:

    If you are unhappy with me and want to see other people, please simply tell me.

    or

    Do you prefer open relationships?

    or

    Are you polyamorous?

  • KrisDStar

    Not everyone views affairs as killers of relationships. It depends on what motivated the affair in the first place. Affairs can be overcome. Not by everyone, certainly, but by some.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    True.

    In the case of Driscoll – could it have been that he was just very upset over the situation? *Assuming* that he did indeed “dream” the situation (which, even by my Christian standards is out there), and was verified by Grace – he was overtaken by emotion?

    And, to your credit and observation, Mark and Grace are still married so they did overcome this – at least that’s what they’re telling people and writing books about.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X