The Case for Early Marriage

Christians have been emphasizing abstinence, says University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus, whereas they should be emphasizing marriage.  Instead, Christians are buying into the same confused ideas about marriage that the world has been assuming.

Among both Christians and non-Christians, the marriage age has been rising, from an average in 1970 of 21 for women and 23 for men to today’s 26 for women and 28 for men.  “That’s five additional, long years of peak sexual interest and fertility,” he remarks.   The fertility point is often neglected.  “Women’s fertility is more or less fixed, yet Americans are increasingly ignoring it during their 20s, only to beg and pray to reclaim it in their 30s and 40s.”

He also deals with objections to early marriage.  For example, the higher divorce rate among those who marry in their teens.  He isn’t arguing for that.   He sees the optimum age as being in the early 20s.  But he also suggests how Christians are uniquely positioned to make early marriages work.

Read Regnerus’s article, which eludes simple excerpting:   The Case for Early Marriage | Christianity Today.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Michael B.

    “The fertility point is often neglected.”

    There’s this fantasy in some conservative circles that there is a birth-rate problem in the US. According to the census, the nation’s population will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005. 67 million of those will be immigrants, but the population is increasing (and greatly increasing), not decreasing.

    “That’s five additional, long years of peak sexual interest”

    The average age of marriage is 28 for men? I think it’s kind of naive expecting a guy to be a virgin at 28. On the other hand, how many 21-year old guys do you know that are ready to be married? Most haven’t even completed school or even have a full-time job yet.

  • Michael B.

    “The fertility point is often neglected.”

    There’s this fantasy in some conservative circles that there is a birth-rate problem in the US. According to the census, the nation’s population will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005. 67 million of those will be immigrants, but the population is increasing (and greatly increasing), not decreasing.

    “That’s five additional, long years of peak sexual interest”

    The average age of marriage is 28 for men? I think it’s kind of naive expecting a guy to be a virgin at 28. On the other hand, how many 21-year old guys do you know that are ready to be married? Most haven’t even completed school or even have a full-time job yet.

  • larry

    The abstinence culture in contemporary American evangelicalism = the old Medieval Roman Monkery. It’s informally the same thing the scholastics developed by taking ‘natural desires’ that are not in and of themselves wrong or bad (i.e. the best fertile years, even the scriptures speak of these), pour them into the pot of “sin” and at length these become “sin” (these natural desires) and even “original sin” and simultaneously teach that “the heart and inclinations of man” are not inclined to not trust in Christ (after all we are speaking of the “born again”, “converted”, “elected”, “now Christian” after the fact folk here) and that’s not original sin and whala “Home Sweet Rome” just without a formal head pope.

    So the youth, laughably now defined as even old as 20+, go through these battery of programs he listed so they can “psychologically flog themselves” in order to ‘intellectually’ inform their desires, which in their teaching and training and implications is not original sin, to get them right. So it becomes like punching one’s self in the gut because the stomach growls at lunch time, because that’s “evil” and “sin” but the desires of the heart now gracified in conversion/rebirth/election are now across the finish line and good and right and have come to subdue that nasty ole “flesh” (flesh here is not biblical). But the real randy character in all this is not body and its natural desires, but the heart and its inclinations to seek and trust in itself in all that it does, the one doing the flagellating of the body and its natural desires. Ask a thousand people what “lust” really means and 999 of them will relate it to sex.

  • larry

    The abstinence culture in contemporary American evangelicalism = the old Medieval Roman Monkery. It’s informally the same thing the scholastics developed by taking ‘natural desires’ that are not in and of themselves wrong or bad (i.e. the best fertile years, even the scriptures speak of these), pour them into the pot of “sin” and at length these become “sin” (these natural desires) and even “original sin” and simultaneously teach that “the heart and inclinations of man” are not inclined to not trust in Christ (after all we are speaking of the “born again”, “converted”, “elected”, “now Christian” after the fact folk here) and that’s not original sin and whala “Home Sweet Rome” just without a formal head pope.

    So the youth, laughably now defined as even old as 20+, go through these battery of programs he listed so they can “psychologically flog themselves” in order to ‘intellectually’ inform their desires, which in their teaching and training and implications is not original sin, to get them right. So it becomes like punching one’s self in the gut because the stomach growls at lunch time, because that’s “evil” and “sin” but the desires of the heart now gracified in conversion/rebirth/election are now across the finish line and good and right and have come to subdue that nasty ole “flesh” (flesh here is not biblical). But the real randy character in all this is not body and its natural desires, but the heart and its inclinations to seek and trust in itself in all that it does, the one doing the flagellating of the body and its natural desires. Ask a thousand people what “lust” really means and 999 of them will relate it to sex.

  • Joe

    I was married at 23 and my wife was 22. I was in my final year of undergrad and then went on to law school. You don’t need to have school completed to get married or have kids. We had two of our four kids while I was in law school.

  • Joe

    I was married at 23 and my wife was 22. I was in my final year of undergrad and then went on to law school. You don’t need to have school completed to get married or have kids. We had two of our four kids while I was in law school.

  • Booklover

    Marriage in early 20′s is an excellent idea. Most men who “aren’t ready for marriage” and who need to “wait in order to grow up” aren’t using those ten extra years to mature or save money. They are generally using those years to party it up, take trips to Vegas, etc. Or maybe that’s just my four sons. . . sigh. . .

    People will once again hate what I wrote, but Someone once said, “It is not good for man to be alone.” There really is something about that beloved woman. . .

  • Booklover

    Marriage in early 20′s is an excellent idea. Most men who “aren’t ready for marriage” and who need to “wait in order to grow up” aren’t using those ten extra years to mature or save money. They are generally using those years to party it up, take trips to Vegas, etc. Or maybe that’s just my four sons. . . sigh. . .

    People will once again hate what I wrote, but Someone once said, “It is not good for man to be alone.” There really is something about that beloved woman. . .

  • Joe

    Booklover — from what I see around me, it is not just your sons. The majority of the single men in their late 20s and 30s at my firm are immature dolts. Highly intelligent but filled this idea that they are supposed to drink, sleep around and take nothing seriously other than their jobs. But this is what our pop culture teaches them is right for a young professional man. Marriage and serious commitment is to be feared and avoided.

  • Joe

    Booklover — from what I see around me, it is not just your sons. The majority of the single men in their late 20s and 30s at my firm are immature dolts. Highly intelligent but filled this idea that they are supposed to drink, sleep around and take nothing seriously other than their jobs. But this is what our pop culture teaches them is right for a young professional man. Marriage and serious commitment is to be feared and avoided.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I’m always wary of folks within the broader Christian culture coming up with ideas that could be rewritten as “the solution to these problems is…”, or “if only everybody did this” etc etc. The only relevant answer to these statements, or suggestions, is Jesus Christ.

    Not to say that these other things are bad, or that they don’t work – they might be pragmatic solutions for some individuals. But they are most certainly not “The Christian answer”. And very often, they are just another movement that enthusiasts join, and a tool for those so inclined to wack others over the head with / assert their own superiority / engage in guilt manipulation.

    No. Jesus Christ.

    Oh, btw I was married before I was 22.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I’m always wary of folks within the broader Christian culture coming up with ideas that could be rewritten as “the solution to these problems is…”, or “if only everybody did this” etc etc. The only relevant answer to these statements, or suggestions, is Jesus Christ.

    Not to say that these other things are bad, or that they don’t work – they might be pragmatic solutions for some individuals. But they are most certainly not “The Christian answer”. And very often, they are just another movement that enthusiasts join, and a tool for those so inclined to wack others over the head with / assert their own superiority / engage in guilt manipulation.

    No. Jesus Christ.

    Oh, btw I was married before I was 22.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Btw, Joe & Booklover, you mighrt want top reread the Canterbury Tales. Or Cicero’s (?) complaint about the young men if his day…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Btw, Joe & Booklover, you mighrt want top reread the Canterbury Tales. Or Cicero’s (?) complaint about the young men if his day…

  • kerner

    We’ve had this conversation before. And I, married at 22, believe that early marriage has its advantages. But KK is right. It wouldn’t be a panacea that would solve society’s problems.

  • kerner

    We’ve had this conversation before. And I, married at 22, believe that early marriage has its advantages. But KK is right. It wouldn’t be a panacea that would solve society’s problems.

  • SKPeterson

    While early marriage may not be a social panacea, it should also not be socially anathematized. Some may be willing and able to be married at 21 or 22, while others may be more ready at 25 or 28. Each person will respond to the prospect of marriage in different ways. What the Church should do is to encourage young people in their early 20′s to seriously consider marriage if they are in a serious relationship, and to then seriously support and uphold them as part of the Church. That period from 18 to 25 is an awkward one in the lives of many of the faithful: too old for youth group, different concerns in college, and without the inherent peer network that exists between older married couples with children. Churches are torn between the need for a “Singles ministry” and a “Young couples without kids (yet) ministry.”

  • SKPeterson

    While early marriage may not be a social panacea, it should also not be socially anathematized. Some may be willing and able to be married at 21 or 22, while others may be more ready at 25 or 28. Each person will respond to the prospect of marriage in different ways. What the Church should do is to encourage young people in their early 20′s to seriously consider marriage if they are in a serious relationship, and to then seriously support and uphold them as part of the Church. That period from 18 to 25 is an awkward one in the lives of many of the faithful: too old for youth group, different concerns in college, and without the inherent peer network that exists between older married couples with children. Churches are torn between the need for a “Singles ministry” and a “Young couples without kids (yet) ministry.”

  • Morgan

    Kerner @8: Ok, maybe it doesn’t solve everyone’s problems everywhere, granted.

    But the dangerous idea is that people extend what’s essentially adolescence into their twenties and thirties and sometimes even beyond. With virtually everyone’s blessing. We conveniently forget that the norm was to be married with kids far, far earlier.

    When we finally do pair off and get all ‘respectable,’ we come to the demographically perilous (but completely rational) conclusion that having more children is a threat to our affluence. We have our one, and then have plenty left for dad’s 911 Turbo and a month in Aspen.

    As Christians, that me-myself-and-I kind of thinking is a bullet train into idolatry, greed, and selfishness. And it should worry all of us.

  • Morgan

    Kerner @8: Ok, maybe it doesn’t solve everyone’s problems everywhere, granted.

    But the dangerous idea is that people extend what’s essentially adolescence into their twenties and thirties and sometimes even beyond. With virtually everyone’s blessing. We conveniently forget that the norm was to be married with kids far, far earlier.

    When we finally do pair off and get all ‘respectable,’ we come to the demographically perilous (but completely rational) conclusion that having more children is a threat to our affluence. We have our one, and then have plenty left for dad’s 911 Turbo and a month in Aspen.

    As Christians, that me-myself-and-I kind of thinking is a bullet train into idolatry, greed, and selfishness. And it should worry all of us.

  • larry

    “Most men who “aren’t ready for marriage” and who need to “wait in order to grow up” aren’t using those ten extra years to mature or save money.”

    Bingo BL, bingo. That’s biggest fallacy out there. If nothing else, and most who did will tell you this, marriage is the very crucible in which true maturity grows whatever the age of marriage is. Hell I didn’t even begin to know what life was all about until I had people dependant on my rear end to put clothes on them, food in their bellies, a roof over their heads and life long education and guidance.

  • larry

    “Most men who “aren’t ready for marriage” and who need to “wait in order to grow up” aren’t using those ten extra years to mature or save money.”

    Bingo BL, bingo. That’s biggest fallacy out there. If nothing else, and most who did will tell you this, marriage is the very crucible in which true maturity grows whatever the age of marriage is. Hell I didn’t even begin to know what life was all about until I had people dependant on my rear end to put clothes on them, food in their bellies, a roof over their heads and life long education and guidance.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Morgan

    But the dangerous idea is that people extend what’s essentially adolescence into their twenties and thirties and sometimes even beyond. With virtually everyone’s blessing. We conveniently forget that the norm was to be married with kids far, far earlier.

    I don’t see anything dangerous about the idea of extending adolescence into one’s twenties, thirties, …seventies, etc. The only reason it was a norm to marry and have kids “far earlier” in the past was because it was needed for survival. It’s now the 21st Century! We no longer have to quit school at 13, marry a few years later and then have a dozen children just to keep the farm. In other words we no longer have to accept straight-jacket adult roles forced on us from our communities and their fossilized institutions.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Morgan

    But the dangerous idea is that people extend what’s essentially adolescence into their twenties and thirties and sometimes even beyond. With virtually everyone’s blessing. We conveniently forget that the norm was to be married with kids far, far earlier.

    I don’t see anything dangerous about the idea of extending adolescence into one’s twenties, thirties, …seventies, etc. The only reason it was a norm to marry and have kids “far earlier” in the past was because it was needed for survival. It’s now the 21st Century! We no longer have to quit school at 13, marry a few years later and then have a dozen children just to keep the farm. In other words we no longer have to accept straight-jacket adult roles forced on us from our communities and their fossilized institutions.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    I’m personally glad I waited until I did–not because marriage earlier wouldn’t have been a blessing, but because of various things in my upbringing, I simply wasn’t ready. As such, I’d change the title of the article from “The Case for Early Marriage” to “The Case for Timely Maturity” or “The Case Against Perpetual Adolescence.” And as a lot of others have noted here, a lot of our society’s current attitudes towards college, career, relationships, and mammon need to be challenged by the church, and people really need to start getting to know one another so that older/younger mentoring thing can happen.

    And regarding no “need” to grow up, as Kitty suggests; yes, it’s not like we have a ton of people living with their parents because they refuse to grow up and get work, and it’s not like 1/3 of adults have a sexually transmitted disease, and it’s not like that number is bound to be much higher among sexually active/promiscuous singles.

    Except that this is exactly the case. And yes, as I look at the actuarial numbers on our society, it is crucial for our long term survival for prolonged adolescence to end.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    I’m personally glad I waited until I did–not because marriage earlier wouldn’t have been a blessing, but because of various things in my upbringing, I simply wasn’t ready. As such, I’d change the title of the article from “The Case for Early Marriage” to “The Case for Timely Maturity” or “The Case Against Perpetual Adolescence.” And as a lot of others have noted here, a lot of our society’s current attitudes towards college, career, relationships, and mammon need to be challenged by the church, and people really need to start getting to know one another so that older/younger mentoring thing can happen.

    And regarding no “need” to grow up, as Kitty suggests; yes, it’s not like we have a ton of people living with their parents because they refuse to grow up and get work, and it’s not like 1/3 of adults have a sexually transmitted disease, and it’s not like that number is bound to be much higher among sexually active/promiscuous singles.

    Except that this is exactly the case. And yes, as I look at the actuarial numbers on our society, it is crucial for our long term survival for prolonged adolescence to end.

  • http://www.holycrossbismarck.org Matt Thompson

    Luther would agree:

    “Now, I speak of this in order that the young may be so guided that they conceive a liking for the married estate, and know that it is a blessed estate and pleasing to God. For in this way we might in the course of time bring it about that married life be restored to honor, and that there might be less of the filthy, dissolute, disorderly doings which now run riot the world over in open prostitution and other shameful vices arising from disregard of married life. Therefore it is the duty of parents and the government to see to it that our youth be brought up to discipline and respectability, and when they have come to years of maturity, to have them married in the fear of God and honorably; He would not fail to add His blessing and grace, so that men would have joy and happiness from the same.” (Large Catechism, 6th Commandment, 217-218)

  • http://www.holycrossbismarck.org Matt Thompson

    Luther would agree:

    “Now, I speak of this in order that the young may be so guided that they conceive a liking for the married estate, and know that it is a blessed estate and pleasing to God. For in this way we might in the course of time bring it about that married life be restored to honor, and that there might be less of the filthy, dissolute, disorderly doings which now run riot the world over in open prostitution and other shameful vices arising from disregard of married life. Therefore it is the duty of parents and the government to see to it that our youth be brought up to discipline and respectability, and when they have come to years of maturity, to have them married in the fear of God and honorably; He would not fail to add His blessing and grace, so that men would have joy and happiness from the same.” (Large Catechism, 6th Commandment, 217-218)

  • Joe

    KK — I don’t mean to suggest that early marriage is some kind of social panacea curing all societies ills. I just get sick and tired of hearing the old, “I’m just not ready to grow up” crap from men who should be heading families and leading communities but instead are choosing to piss away their lives as eternal children. I have no doubt that their have been useless young men for time eternal, but that doesn’t make it right.

    Given that one of the focuses here is vocation, I’d be interested in some thoughts on men who choose to stay single (not because they are celibate) simply to avoid the responsibility of leading a family and raising children.

  • Joe

    KK — I don’t mean to suggest that early marriage is some kind of social panacea curing all societies ills. I just get sick and tired of hearing the old, “I’m just not ready to grow up” crap from men who should be heading families and leading communities but instead are choosing to piss away their lives as eternal children. I have no doubt that their have been useless young men for time eternal, but that doesn’t make it right.

    Given that one of the focuses here is vocation, I’d be interested in some thoughts on men who choose to stay single (not because they are celibate) simply to avoid the responsibility of leading a family and raising children.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I’m somewhat with Krassie on this. I suppose in a perfect world this would be the solution, and yet in a perfect world we wouldn’t need one. I certainly don’t think marriage at an earlier age is a bad thing. I think Michael B is correct. It is not reasonable to expect a male to remain a virgin until 28. Yes it happens. But seriously, it isn’t reasonable. I’m of a mind, somewhat from personal experience, that putting sexual intercourse off that long is only asking to develop a neurosis. Not true for everyone I know, but I’m not everyone and neither are you. It is unnatural, as in it is the development of sin in the world that anyone would be required to wait that long. God did not intend this when he created us.
    I think he intended earlier marriage. And putting marriage off to a later day and age is no safe guard against divorce either. I know.
    So, where does this put us. Marry when your ready. I guess. Try abstain from fornication in the meantime, but if you are old enough to knock a girl up and have a child with her, you are old enough to marry her and raise that child. Don’t worry, you aren’t missing out on anything by prolonging adolescence through college. Drunken binge parties are over rated, I would have rather spent my Friday nights with a wife… Just saying.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I’m somewhat with Krassie on this. I suppose in a perfect world this would be the solution, and yet in a perfect world we wouldn’t need one. I certainly don’t think marriage at an earlier age is a bad thing. I think Michael B is correct. It is not reasonable to expect a male to remain a virgin until 28. Yes it happens. But seriously, it isn’t reasonable. I’m of a mind, somewhat from personal experience, that putting sexual intercourse off that long is only asking to develop a neurosis. Not true for everyone I know, but I’m not everyone and neither are you. It is unnatural, as in it is the development of sin in the world that anyone would be required to wait that long. God did not intend this when he created us.
    I think he intended earlier marriage. And putting marriage off to a later day and age is no safe guard against divorce either. I know.
    So, where does this put us. Marry when your ready. I guess. Try abstain from fornication in the meantime, but if you are old enough to knock a girl up and have a child with her, you are old enough to marry her and raise that child. Don’t worry, you aren’t missing out on anything by prolonging adolescence through college. Drunken binge parties are over rated, I would have rather spent my Friday nights with a wife… Just saying.

  • Larry H.

    I was 19 and my bride 18, we had a low paying job and no college degree when we married over 22 years ago. We still had a lot of growing up to do, but we grew up together. We have an above average size family and my wife has not earned a pay check for 20 years. We did not start out as Christians, but we did have a commitment to our marriage, that being said, we probably would not have lasted if we had not been brought to faith and realized what Christ has done and continues to do for us. We were not ready for marriage but we grew into it.

  • Larry H.

    I was 19 and my bride 18, we had a low paying job and no college degree when we married over 22 years ago. We still had a lot of growing up to do, but we grew up together. We have an above average size family and my wife has not earned a pay check for 20 years. We did not start out as Christians, but we did have a commitment to our marriage, that being said, we probably would not have lasted if we had not been brought to faith and realized what Christ has done and continues to do for us. We were not ready for marriage but we grew into it.

  • DonS

    I’m with Joe on this one. I was 25, not terrifically young, but not old, when I got married, and my wife was 22. We had our first two kids while I was in law school (but I didn’t start law school until I was 27). So far, those two got married at 22 and 21, respectively, and are both doing well so far.

    Marriage is an individualized thing — the young should not be stigmatized for marrying young, nor should those who wait be maligned for that. Caveat — if you wait, you should have a good reason. Wanting to party and avoid responsibility through your 20′s and early 30′s is not a good reason.

  • DonS

    I’m with Joe on this one. I was 25, not terrifically young, but not old, when I got married, and my wife was 22. We had our first two kids while I was in law school (but I didn’t start law school until I was 27). So far, those two got married at 22 and 21, respectively, and are both doing well so far.

    Marriage is an individualized thing — the young should not be stigmatized for marrying young, nor should those who wait be maligned for that. Caveat — if you wait, you should have a good reason. Wanting to party and avoid responsibility through your 20′s and early 30′s is not a good reason.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Looking into my family history, I see that 100 years ago, it was not uncommon for women to get married at 16 or 17 , and men only a little older.

    These days though, we pampered moderns try to extend our childhood as long as possible.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Looking into my family history, I see that 100 years ago, it was not uncommon for women to get married at 16 or 17 , and men only a little older.

    These days though, we pampered moderns try to extend our childhood as long as possible.

  • Cincinnatus

    @Kitty #4:

    That’s a fair point, but one that falls apart upon closer scrutiny. True, the average couple need not (and perhaps ought not!) pump out seven or eight children hoping that three or four will survive to adulthood to harvest the crops.

    But if you only have one–or no–children, who’s going to take care of you and your hypothetical husband/wife when you’re old? Unless you’re one of the few who will have saved enough to fund an indefinite stay in a comfortable nursing home, I suspect you’ll say something like “Medicare” or “the State” or “Social Security.”

    And who’s going to keep those generous programs solvent? No one, because there won’t be enough young people paying taxes to fund a massive class of elderly folks in their comfortable retirements. So yeah, having only one child when you’re 35 may not be an individual detriment to your life or survival, but if your pattern is extrapolated to the whole population, then we have a recipe for demographic chaos. That’s a big problem, and it’s caused directly by people extending their adolescence indefinitely, restricting themselves to 2.1 children so they can afford the Porsche or Harley, and generally not thinking about the future in a communal sense.

  • Cincinnatus

    @Kitty #4:

    That’s a fair point, but one that falls apart upon closer scrutiny. True, the average couple need not (and perhaps ought not!) pump out seven or eight children hoping that three or four will survive to adulthood to harvest the crops.

    But if you only have one–or no–children, who’s going to take care of you and your hypothetical husband/wife when you’re old? Unless you’re one of the few who will have saved enough to fund an indefinite stay in a comfortable nursing home, I suspect you’ll say something like “Medicare” or “the State” or “Social Security.”

    And who’s going to keep those generous programs solvent? No one, because there won’t be enough young people paying taxes to fund a massive class of elderly folks in their comfortable retirements. So yeah, having only one child when you’re 35 may not be an individual detriment to your life or survival, but if your pattern is extrapolated to the whole population, then we have a recipe for demographic chaos. That’s a big problem, and it’s caused directly by people extending their adolescence indefinitely, restricting themselves to 2.1 children so they can afford the Porsche or Harley, and generally not thinking about the future in a communal sense.

  • Cincinnatus

    Back on topic, yes, I think young marriage is generally a good idea–for the usual reasons, and not simply because it’s worked for me.

    It’s probably easier for those in the upper middle classes to conceive of putting off marriage until their late twenties or thirties–as indeed they already do. But consider the illegitimacy rates in poorer communities (I’m not going to do the Google legwork for you, but they’re huge). Imagine if there were still significant social pressure to get married when you knock someone up/have been knocked up? In other words, significant proportions of young people are already effectively acting like married people–having sex and procreating–but they’re not committing to marriage itself, whether we define marriage as a state institution, a holy sacrament, or even simple cohabitation. That’s bad for everyone, and we all would benefit–taxpayers who subsidize single mothers, the couples themselves, and especially the children–if we returned to a culture in which young marriage was not only typical but expected.

  • Cincinnatus

    Back on topic, yes, I think young marriage is generally a good idea–for the usual reasons, and not simply because it’s worked for me.

    It’s probably easier for those in the upper middle classes to conceive of putting off marriage until their late twenties or thirties–as indeed they already do. But consider the illegitimacy rates in poorer communities (I’m not going to do the Google legwork for you, but they’re huge). Imagine if there were still significant social pressure to get married when you knock someone up/have been knocked up? In other words, significant proportions of young people are already effectively acting like married people–having sex and procreating–but they’re not committing to marriage itself, whether we define marriage as a state institution, a holy sacrament, or even simple cohabitation. That’s bad for everyone, and we all would benefit–taxpayers who subsidize single mothers, the couples themselves, and especially the children–if we returned to a culture in which young marriage was not only typical but expected.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DonS, well said.

    Far too many people are in the business of prescribing things to others they have no business doing. I’m not referring to government etc here, but to the whole cottage industry of Christian Busybodies.

    You know – Thou shalt (insert), if thou art a Real/Serious Christian. And insert could be – school this way, read this, work here, make that, marry this way, etc etc.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DonS, well said.

    Far too many people are in the business of prescribing things to others they have no business doing. I’m not referring to government etc here, but to the whole cottage industry of Christian Busybodies.

    You know – Thou shalt (insert), if thou art a Real/Serious Christian. And insert could be – school this way, read this, work here, make that, marry this way, etc etc.

  • Grace

    Just weeks ago, Dr. Veith posted a blog entitled, “Sex and the single Christian” – it was a huge success. The letter written to Dr. Veith from Dr. Marvin Olasky, Editor-in-chief of WORLD from World Magazine asking questions regarding sexual activity, contraception among young adults. The letter from Dr. Olasky, and all 180 posts tie in very well, with the new blog today.

    Sex and the single Christian

    by Gene Veith on July 12, 2012

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/07/12/sex-and-the-single-christian/

  • Grace

    Just weeks ago, Dr. Veith posted a blog entitled, “Sex and the single Christian” – it was a huge success. The letter written to Dr. Veith from Dr. Marvin Olasky, Editor-in-chief of WORLD from World Magazine asking questions regarding sexual activity, contraception among young adults. The letter from Dr. Olasky, and all 180 posts tie in very well, with the new blog today.

    Sex and the single Christian

    by Gene Veith on July 12, 2012

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/07/12/sex-and-the-single-christian/

  • Cincinnatus

    KK:

    Obviously, the line between legitimate sexual pre/pro-scriptions and legalism is thin, but the Church has historically constructed such pre/pro-scriptions with an eye toward practicality. Indeed, St. Paul’s injunctions are rooted in a healthy realism regarding human sexuality.

    In other words, it’s a question of interpretation. What folks like me advocate isn’t an excuse for moralism: “You should marry young because That’s Just What Good Christians Should Do.” No, you should marry young–or at least seriously consider the viability of marrying young–because of some basic facts about biological sexuality. Generally, human beings are biologically capable of reproduction in their teens. It’s one thing to insist that teenagers remain abstinent until they’re of legal adulthood. It’s another thing entirely to insist that they remain abstinent until marriage, when marriage is increasingly understood in the “world” to be something that doesn’t happen until one is fiscally established with a promising career (or, rather, until one is partied out and ready to “settle down”)–that is, until one is approaching thirty. Instead of demanding that Christian youth maintain a valiant struggle against their deepest biological impulses for more than a decade of their lives–a struggle in which victory is all but impossible for many people–wouldn’t the Church be better off, and wouldn’t ordinary people be better off, if we simply conformed to the bare facts of human nature and encouraged early marriage? Within the Church’s historical purview of ministering to the practical needs of a culture, I don’t see any reason why the “message” on sexuality can’t be modified to something more practical.

    In short, what I’m talking about here is the distinction between abstinence and chastity. Until recently, chastity was the virtue of choice for Christianity. What happened?

  • Cincinnatus

    KK:

    Obviously, the line between legitimate sexual pre/pro-scriptions and legalism is thin, but the Church has historically constructed such pre/pro-scriptions with an eye toward practicality. Indeed, St. Paul’s injunctions are rooted in a healthy realism regarding human sexuality.

    In other words, it’s a question of interpretation. What folks like me advocate isn’t an excuse for moralism: “You should marry young because That’s Just What Good Christians Should Do.” No, you should marry young–or at least seriously consider the viability of marrying young–because of some basic facts about biological sexuality. Generally, human beings are biologically capable of reproduction in their teens. It’s one thing to insist that teenagers remain abstinent until they’re of legal adulthood. It’s another thing entirely to insist that they remain abstinent until marriage, when marriage is increasingly understood in the “world” to be something that doesn’t happen until one is fiscally established with a promising career (or, rather, until one is partied out and ready to “settle down”)–that is, until one is approaching thirty. Instead of demanding that Christian youth maintain a valiant struggle against their deepest biological impulses for more than a decade of their lives–a struggle in which victory is all but impossible for many people–wouldn’t the Church be better off, and wouldn’t ordinary people be better off, if we simply conformed to the bare facts of human nature and encouraged early marriage? Within the Church’s historical purview of ministering to the practical needs of a culture, I don’t see any reason why the “message” on sexuality can’t be modified to something more practical.

    In short, what I’m talking about here is the distinction between abstinence and chastity. Until recently, chastity was the virtue of choice for Christianity. What happened?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    C – I wasn’t thinking about chastity at all. I was thinking of other rules – Marry Early! Homeschool! No working mothers! Gazillion children! Home grown food! Never use Soc Sec! Believe in this form of government! Use this Curriculum! Barefoot, Pregnant and in the Kitchen! blah blah blah.

    Some of those might be good things. But they are not rules, or even guidelines!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    C – I wasn’t thinking about chastity at all. I was thinking of other rules – Marry Early! Homeschool! No working mothers! Gazillion children! Home grown food! Never use Soc Sec! Believe in this form of government! Use this Curriculum! Barefoot, Pregnant and in the Kitchen! blah blah blah.

    Some of those might be good things. But they are not rules, or even guidelines!

  • George

    I hate to say this, but some of these folks who criticize these unmarried people without children for their lack of responsibilities probably feel a certain amount of resentment towards them, and sometimes envy.  It’s almost a sort of “if I have to do this, then you should too”. 

  • George

    I hate to say this, but some of these folks who criticize these unmarried people without children for their lack of responsibilities probably feel a certain amount of resentment towards them, and sometimes envy.  It’s almost a sort of “if I have to do this, then you should too”. 

  • #4 Kitty

    @DonS

    Caveat — if you wait, you should have a good reason. Wanting to party and avoid responsibility through your 20′s and early 30′s is not a good reason.

    Sorry to be so argumentative Don but I fail to see why this is not a “good reason”. And what exactly is so noble about creating
    self- imposed responsibility?

  • #4 Kitty

    @DonS

    Caveat — if you wait, you should have a good reason. Wanting to party and avoid responsibility through your 20′s and early 30′s is not a good reason.

    Sorry to be so argumentative Don but I fail to see why this is not a “good reason”. And what exactly is so noble about creating
    self- imposed responsibility?

  • Cincinnatus

    George: What? I only resent “them” insofar as my taxes underwrite their irresponsible choices. Society would, objectively, be better off if people raised their own children without the coercive financial assistance of the State. Marriage is a significant precondition for such independence. Meanwhile, why would I envy “them”? “They,” statistically speaking, are usually poor, uneducated young people who now have to work minimum wage jobs to keep formula in the baby’s mouth.

    Or are you talking about the “perpetual adolescent”? Yes, I truly miss those days. Being an almost-broke post-college grad in a crappy flat with five other similarly broke guys was wonderful. When I look at my life now–first child on the way, in a comfortable home, with a beautiful wife, and a stable career–I can’t help but envy the man I once was, subsisting on dried beans and Ramen while watching my housemates binge drink and play XBox (I couldn’t afford to put gas in the car to go anywhere except work). Yup, those were truly the good ole’ days.

    Come on. And way to conceptualize marriage as an odious “burden” that people assume as some kind of self-inflicted torture that unnaturally ends their glorious bachelorhood.

  • Cincinnatus

    George: What? I only resent “them” insofar as my taxes underwrite their irresponsible choices. Society would, objectively, be better off if people raised their own children without the coercive financial assistance of the State. Marriage is a significant precondition for such independence. Meanwhile, why would I envy “them”? “They,” statistically speaking, are usually poor, uneducated young people who now have to work minimum wage jobs to keep formula in the baby’s mouth.

    Or are you talking about the “perpetual adolescent”? Yes, I truly miss those days. Being an almost-broke post-college grad in a crappy flat with five other similarly broke guys was wonderful. When I look at my life now–first child on the way, in a comfortable home, with a beautiful wife, and a stable career–I can’t help but envy the man I once was, subsisting on dried beans and Ramen while watching my housemates binge drink and play XBox (I couldn’t afford to put gas in the car to go anywhere except work). Yup, those were truly the good ole’ days.

    Come on. And way to conceptualize marriage as an odious “burden” that people assume as some kind of self-inflicted torture that unnaturally ends their glorious bachelorhood.

  • Cincinnatus

    #4Kitty@27:

    Let me ask you a question: do individual choices have any consequences within a broader socio-cultural context? That is, do my choices only affect myself–meaning I can do whatever I want, effectively–or do my “life choices,” especially when repeated by several million other people like me, have some effect in shaping the culture around me?

    Several dozen million people slacking off, avoiding all adult responsibilities, and partying well into adulthood isn’t a good recipe for social flourishing. How is a community supposed to function if no one steps up to lead it–or even just be in it in a meaningful way? You sure don’t give much thought to communal duties and obligations. Heck, even if you don’t agree that early marriage and parenthood is a prudent idea, I can think of dozens of other worthier things these perpetual adolescents could be doing with their lives other than wondering where their next bout of binge-drinking will happen.

  • Cincinnatus

    #4Kitty@27:

    Let me ask you a question: do individual choices have any consequences within a broader socio-cultural context? That is, do my choices only affect myself–meaning I can do whatever I want, effectively–or do my “life choices,” especially when repeated by several million other people like me, have some effect in shaping the culture around me?

    Several dozen million people slacking off, avoiding all adult responsibilities, and partying well into adulthood isn’t a good recipe for social flourishing. How is a community supposed to function if no one steps up to lead it–or even just be in it in a meaningful way? You sure don’t give much thought to communal duties and obligations. Heck, even if you don’t agree that early marriage and parenthood is a prudent idea, I can think of dozens of other worthier things these perpetual adolescents could be doing with their lives other than wondering where their next bout of binge-drinking will happen.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    Klasie made most of my points at #6. We love spinning out new models, or dragging up old models to pour people into. The best old models were applications of Scripture to particular situations. And we’re in different ones. It’s one thing to imagine it would be healthier if more married early. It’s another to tell individual Christians that they’re outside the will of God if they do something else. Many will easily slip from one to the other.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    Klasie made most of my points at #6. We love spinning out new models, or dragging up old models to pour people into. The best old models were applications of Scripture to particular situations. And we’re in different ones. It’s one thing to imagine it would be healthier if more married early. It’s another to tell individual Christians that they’re outside the will of God if they do something else. Many will easily slip from one to the other.

  • Cincinnatus

    Rick Ritchie (and, by extension, KK)@30:

    I don’t see anyone–not on this blog, and not in the Veith’s post–suggesting that a Christian is “outside the will of God” if they aren’t married by the time he or she is 22. What I see is a suggestion that the Church’s entire approach to sexuality is completely flawed. The Church has sunk itself into a rut telling young people that they aren’t allowed to engage in any sexual activity whatsoever outside marriage. Meanwhile, the Church seems to have overlooked the fact that their young congregants are increasingly postponing marriage until their late twenties to early thirties–rendering their demands for abstinence unreasonable at best and legalistic. After all, the point of the Christian posture toward sexuality is abstinence but chastity.

    Here’s what this means practically: if a congregant is, say, 28 years old and has been practicing the sort of serial dating common in contemporary culture, perhaps the pastor ought to counsel him to consider marriage. Or if a 19 year old high school graduate has been dating the same girl for four years, maybe he ought to counsel the same. The Church doesn’t do this. Instead, it shouts “ABSTAIN.” Meanwhile, young people are getting their message about marriage from the culture: “PUT IT OFF.” Even if that encourages you to be a sexually frustrated and/or licentious twenty-something.

    I know this seems far-fetched, given that most churches don’t even bother with practical discipleship these days. But I think it’s high time the Church changes its message on sexuality. The rigid “abstinence only” platform is the untenable innovation, not the advice to marry young–which is in Scripture itself.

  • Cincinnatus

    Rick Ritchie (and, by extension, KK)@30:

    I don’t see anyone–not on this blog, and not in the Veith’s post–suggesting that a Christian is “outside the will of God” if they aren’t married by the time he or she is 22. What I see is a suggestion that the Church’s entire approach to sexuality is completely flawed. The Church has sunk itself into a rut telling young people that they aren’t allowed to engage in any sexual activity whatsoever outside marriage. Meanwhile, the Church seems to have overlooked the fact that their young congregants are increasingly postponing marriage until their late twenties to early thirties–rendering their demands for abstinence unreasonable at best and legalistic. After all, the point of the Christian posture toward sexuality is abstinence but chastity.

    Here’s what this means practically: if a congregant is, say, 28 years old and has been practicing the sort of serial dating common in contemporary culture, perhaps the pastor ought to counsel him to consider marriage. Or if a 19 year old high school graduate has been dating the same girl for four years, maybe he ought to counsel the same. The Church doesn’t do this. Instead, it shouts “ABSTAIN.” Meanwhile, young people are getting their message about marriage from the culture: “PUT IT OFF.” Even if that encourages you to be a sexually frustrated and/or licentious twenty-something.

    I know this seems far-fetched, given that most churches don’t even bother with practical discipleship these days. But I think it’s high time the Church changes its message on sexuality. The rigid “abstinence only” platform is the untenable innovation, not the advice to marry young–which is in Scripture itself.

  • DonS

    Kitty @ 27: Well, I think Cincinnatus is doing a fine job of articulating the point I was trying to make. This is a Christian blog. So, part (most) of what I was saying has to do with stewardship of our time and health. Christians are on earth for a specific reason — to further the kingdom of God by sharing the Gospel to the world. We are given talents, abilities, and good health for that purpose. Dissipation is a sin — the Bible makes that very clear. So that is why I say that we as Christians are not to avoid responsibility or live for the purpose of partying and having a good, carefree life.

    You are not a Christian, or so you have made clear in past threads. So, the foregoing doesn’t specifically apply to you, although hopefully you do understand that you will still be accountable on the Day of Judgment for your sins. However, there are other reasons why we shouldn’t defer marriage and procreation for selfish purposes. Namely, as Cincinnatus has said above, we have a responsibility to our neighbors and progeny to ensure that society continues after we are gone, particularly since we have so burdened that society with long-term promises that have not been funded and that we, collectively, have voted for. If you are not contributing to the future well-being of society, by having a sufficient number of kids to bear the burden of funding the programs you (we as a society) have voted for, and your reason is that you want to be a slacker and just “enjoy life”, then you are ultimately a burden on society. It’s as simple as that.

  • DonS

    Kitty @ 27: Well, I think Cincinnatus is doing a fine job of articulating the point I was trying to make. This is a Christian blog. So, part (most) of what I was saying has to do with stewardship of our time and health. Christians are on earth for a specific reason — to further the kingdom of God by sharing the Gospel to the world. We are given talents, abilities, and good health for that purpose. Dissipation is a sin — the Bible makes that very clear. So that is why I say that we as Christians are not to avoid responsibility or live for the purpose of partying and having a good, carefree life.

    You are not a Christian, or so you have made clear in past threads. So, the foregoing doesn’t specifically apply to you, although hopefully you do understand that you will still be accountable on the Day of Judgment for your sins. However, there are other reasons why we shouldn’t defer marriage and procreation for selfish purposes. Namely, as Cincinnatus has said above, we have a responsibility to our neighbors and progeny to ensure that society continues after we are gone, particularly since we have so burdened that society with long-term promises that have not been funded and that we, collectively, have voted for. If you are not contributing to the future well-being of society, by having a sufficient number of kids to bear the burden of funding the programs you (we as a society) have voted for, and your reason is that you want to be a slacker and just “enjoy life”, then you are ultimately a burden on society. It’s as simple as that.

  • larry

    “Marriage is an individualized thing” exactly DonS. That’s the POINT, prescription yea or nea is ALWAYS the problem. Neither married older, which I did from what I can tell much later than anyone here thus far or young is individualized. Marrying early won’t solve it all, neither older, its when prescription comes into play that it produces artificially a problem. It’s notable that Paul, and the confessions after him, does not prescribe a quantity, just a simple “if you burn…”. Therefore, no Rx to fix the problem just a channel. There should be an “against” a prescription to marry older and an “against” to a prescription that younger is a panacea too or if these are implicated “as the way to go”. To put it from the reverse angle no one should look down upon and thus implied pressure, to someone marrying older or younger which is what these abstinence programs and the like have in common with the “you must marry early crowd”.

    Marry when you want to and to hell with anyone elses opinion pious or impious alike.

  • larry

    “Marriage is an individualized thing” exactly DonS. That’s the POINT, prescription yea or nea is ALWAYS the problem. Neither married older, which I did from what I can tell much later than anyone here thus far or young is individualized. Marrying early won’t solve it all, neither older, its when prescription comes into play that it produces artificially a problem. It’s notable that Paul, and the confessions after him, does not prescribe a quantity, just a simple “if you burn…”. Therefore, no Rx to fix the problem just a channel. There should be an “against” a prescription to marry older and an “against” to a prescription that younger is a panacea too or if these are implicated “as the way to go”. To put it from the reverse angle no one should look down upon and thus implied pressure, to someone marrying older or younger which is what these abstinence programs and the like have in common with the “you must marry early crowd”.

    Marry when you want to and to hell with anyone elses opinion pious or impious alike.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cincinnatus – if my experience tells me anything, it is that “A good idea” becomes a law, pronto pronto.

    I do understand what you are saying. But I would never say earlier good, later bad. There is St Paul’s advice that if you can’t keep it zipped up, then marry. Any generalization beyond that is nonsense, and dangerous.

    Also, we have a particularly curious view of marriage, as some sort of state/ecclesiastical controlled state of being. Fiddlesticks. Those entities can recognize marriage, for the protection of the individuals (and that was the original intention, especially from the Ecclesiastical side). But to require that, plus whole damn big ceremony putting you into debt for years, adds a lot of unnecessary pressure. And yes, folks like Doug Wilson has started to say that a big celebration is a “biblical” must.

    Never underestimate the capability of church people to churn out laws and other social pressures.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cincinnatus – if my experience tells me anything, it is that “A good idea” becomes a law, pronto pronto.

    I do understand what you are saying. But I would never say earlier good, later bad. There is St Paul’s advice that if you can’t keep it zipped up, then marry. Any generalization beyond that is nonsense, and dangerous.

    Also, we have a particularly curious view of marriage, as some sort of state/ecclesiastical controlled state of being. Fiddlesticks. Those entities can recognize marriage, for the protection of the individuals (and that was the original intention, especially from the Ecclesiastical side). But to require that, plus whole damn big ceremony putting you into debt for years, adds a lot of unnecessary pressure. And yes, folks like Doug Wilson has started to say that a big celebration is a “biblical” must.

    Never underestimate the capability of church people to churn out laws and other social pressures.

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @31

    “I know this seems far-fetched, given that most churches don’t even bother with practical discipleship these days. But I think it’s high time the Church changes its message on sexuality. The rigid “abstinence only” platform is the untenable innovation, not the advice to marry young–which is in Scripture itself.”

    What then do you say to the individual who dates, but has not fallen in love with anyone, as of yet? This happens, all too often, but no one wants to talk about it.

    Some young women and men are ‘love sick, all the time, with a number of people – perhaps it’s because they are young, and vulnerable, mistaking sexual urges for real love.

    I have watched people I know well, some within my family – ‘think they are in love, when in fact they aren’t – they are in love, with love. IF they would choose to marry, it would be a terrible mistake – some have even gone so far as to marry, it turned out badly. The foundation was not love, but lust. That’s not a reason to marry anyone.

    What “discipleship” program would you suggest for the above situations I’ve mentioned?

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @31

    “I know this seems far-fetched, given that most churches don’t even bother with practical discipleship these days. But I think it’s high time the Church changes its message on sexuality. The rigid “abstinence only” platform is the untenable innovation, not the advice to marry young–which is in Scripture itself.”

    What then do you say to the individual who dates, but has not fallen in love with anyone, as of yet? This happens, all too often, but no one wants to talk about it.

    Some young women and men are ‘love sick, all the time, with a number of people – perhaps it’s because they are young, and vulnerable, mistaking sexual urges for real love.

    I have watched people I know well, some within my family – ‘think they are in love, when in fact they aren’t – they are in love, with love. IF they would choose to marry, it would be a terrible mistake – some have even gone so far as to marry, it turned out badly. The foundation was not love, but lust. That’s not a reason to marry anyone.

    What “discipleship” program would you suggest for the above situations I’ve mentioned?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    larry, I love your last line!!

    Marry when you want to and to hell with anyone elses opinion pious or impious alike.

    Preach it, brother!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    larry, I love your last line!!

    Marry when you want to and to hell with anyone elses opinion pious or impious alike.

    Preach it, brother!

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    Cincinnatus@31 “The rigid “abstinence only” platform is the untenable innovation, not the advice to marry young–which is in Scripture itself.”

    1 Corinthians 7 advises singleness where possible. So not all are being told to marry young. And it’s just that kind of simplification we are risking here.

    I think perhaps I could describe my problem thus. There is a universal here that we must wrestle with: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” But it seems that the various models of what we should tell young people are attempts to offer “universal advice.” No. The law is universal. But advice is situational. Advice is an attempt to help people keep the law in their given circumstances. But circumstances change. And individuals differ. St. Paul even recognizes that. There is also a sort of middle category of wisdom. That would be advice that tends to be true through the ages. But I don’t think that’s what is being discussed above, as wisdom is not usually argued from statistics. She cried aloud in the streets long before sociologists started counting things.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    Cincinnatus@31 “The rigid “abstinence only” platform is the untenable innovation, not the advice to marry young–which is in Scripture itself.”

    1 Corinthians 7 advises singleness where possible. So not all are being told to marry young. And it’s just that kind of simplification we are risking here.

    I think perhaps I could describe my problem thus. There is a universal here that we must wrestle with: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” But it seems that the various models of what we should tell young people are attempts to offer “universal advice.” No. The law is universal. But advice is situational. Advice is an attempt to help people keep the law in their given circumstances. But circumstances change. And individuals differ. St. Paul even recognizes that. There is also a sort of middle category of wisdom. That would be advice that tends to be true through the ages. But I don’t think that’s what is being discussed above, as wisdom is not usually argued from statistics. She cried aloud in the streets long before sociologists started counting things.

  • Patrick Kyle

    One thing that is not mentioned in this whole discussion is that it is becoming an increasing liability to men to risk marriage. The laws of the land strongly favor women and their independence from men. This means that on the statistically even chance that your marriage will end in divorce, the law keeps you on the hook financially, often whether you have children or not. I have seen the results of judges’ decisions that basically enslave and impoverish the man after a divorce that he did not earn or initiate. Meanwhile the wife takes up with another guy but doesn’t marry him so that her ex is forced by the courts to fund her new life with her new paramour. I have heard LOTS of guys say that such risk isn’t worth it especially when sex is so easily had on the open market. Not saying its right, just saying it figures into the equation.

  • Patrick Kyle

    One thing that is not mentioned in this whole discussion is that it is becoming an increasing liability to men to risk marriage. The laws of the land strongly favor women and their independence from men. This means that on the statistically even chance that your marriage will end in divorce, the law keeps you on the hook financially, often whether you have children or not. I have seen the results of judges’ decisions that basically enslave and impoverish the man after a divorce that he did not earn or initiate. Meanwhile the wife takes up with another guy but doesn’t marry him so that her ex is forced by the courts to fund her new life with her new paramour. I have heard LOTS of guys say that such risk isn’t worth it especially when sex is so easily had on the open market. Not saying its right, just saying it figures into the equation.

  • Joe

    Grace — there are certainly people who have not yet met the “right” person and those people may genuinely suffer until they find that person. But often (I am necessarily generalizing here) the “i haven’t fallen in love yet” deal is a symptom of not really understanding what love is. We as a society have misconstrued notion of love as something we can fall in and out of some sort of supernatural feeling. Love is a learned behavior. Our attempt to mirror what Christ did for us. Love is attempting to live out or vocations.

    So, I would ask them what they think love is. Are they waiting for some impossibly perfect person to come their way who will make them forever feel like a pretty princes or whatever the male equivalent would be? If yes, I would talk with them about what love really is.

    Marriage requires a few basic things: 1. do you both understand that Biblical marriage is a reflection of Christ’s relationship with his church. (Husbands love your wife as Christ loved the church — be prepared to die for you wife — and wives submit to your husbands); 2. do you share the same faith, 3. do you like being with the person (because you will spend more time with them than anyone else); 4. do you understand the centrality of repentance and forgiveness within your marriage (i.e. you are going to have to ask for forgiveness and be prepared to forgive to your spouse); 5. are you sexually attracted to the person (this may or may not even need to be on the list)

    Noticeably absent from the list are rainbows, skyrockets and other mushy things.

  • Joe

    Grace — there are certainly people who have not yet met the “right” person and those people may genuinely suffer until they find that person. But often (I am necessarily generalizing here) the “i haven’t fallen in love yet” deal is a symptom of not really understanding what love is. We as a society have misconstrued notion of love as something we can fall in and out of some sort of supernatural feeling. Love is a learned behavior. Our attempt to mirror what Christ did for us. Love is attempting to live out or vocations.

    So, I would ask them what they think love is. Are they waiting for some impossibly perfect person to come their way who will make them forever feel like a pretty princes or whatever the male equivalent would be? If yes, I would talk with them about what love really is.

    Marriage requires a few basic things: 1. do you both understand that Biblical marriage is a reflection of Christ’s relationship with his church. (Husbands love your wife as Christ loved the church — be prepared to die for you wife — and wives submit to your husbands); 2. do you share the same faith, 3. do you like being with the person (because you will spend more time with them than anyone else); 4. do you understand the centrality of repentance and forgiveness within your marriage (i.e. you are going to have to ask for forgiveness and be prepared to forgive to your spouse); 5. are you sexually attracted to the person (this may or may not even need to be on the list)

    Noticeably absent from the list are rainbows, skyrockets and other mushy things.

  • larry

    KK,

    Thanks much.

    You are right on the money “if my experience tells me anything, it is that “A good idea” becomes a law, pronto pronto.” Same experience here brother. A “good idea” pops up and out come the lawyers with their brief cases in hand drafting legistlation immediately (or better put “pronto ponto”). Then what use to be a fairly decent adiaphora that everyone enjoyed becomes a psychological law that everyone hates.

    CS Lewis once stated something I’ve never forgot that is apropos. “There’s one sure way to make someone no longer be joyful”, that way, “tell him he must be joyful”.

    The same happens with beer and wine abstinence law. First that law is drafted. Then somebody gets freed, then pretty soon the lawyers come out of the wood work and draft “must drink beer to enjoy the gospel laws”, then the lawyers on the other side fight back with more abstaining laws. Whole new ecclesiastical “vocations” are then created for religious lawyers, legistlatures, fruit inspectors, fruit police, fruit regulators, etc…and thus a very enjoyable adiaphora becomes a living hell.

  • larry

    KK,

    Thanks much.

    You are right on the money “if my experience tells me anything, it is that “A good idea” becomes a law, pronto pronto.” Same experience here brother. A “good idea” pops up and out come the lawyers with their brief cases in hand drafting legistlation immediately (or better put “pronto ponto”). Then what use to be a fairly decent adiaphora that everyone enjoyed becomes a psychological law that everyone hates.

    CS Lewis once stated something I’ve never forgot that is apropos. “There’s one sure way to make someone no longer be joyful”, that way, “tell him he must be joyful”.

    The same happens with beer and wine abstinence law. First that law is drafted. Then somebody gets freed, then pretty soon the lawyers come out of the wood work and draft “must drink beer to enjoy the gospel laws”, then the lawyers on the other side fight back with more abstaining laws. Whole new ecclesiastical “vocations” are then created for religious lawyers, legistlatures, fruit inspectors, fruit police, fruit regulators, etc…and thus a very enjoyable adiaphora becomes a living hell.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    My observation is that Christians with good job prospects marry a lot earlier then those who struggle.

    I’d have liked to marry at 20 when I proposed to my wife but I made barely above minimum wage and her main income were disability benefits that would be mostly taken away if she was married.

    I believe our combined income was set to drop by 30-40% if we married. I’d like to say that we were chaste until marriage but we weren’t. As soon as our finances allowed we married. However I felt that it was perverse that the government’s policy punished the disabled for marrying.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    My observation is that Christians with good job prospects marry a lot earlier then those who struggle.

    I’d have liked to marry at 20 when I proposed to my wife but I made barely above minimum wage and her main income were disability benefits that would be mostly taken away if she was married.

    I believe our combined income was set to drop by 30-40% if we married. I’d like to say that we were chaste until marriage but we weren’t. As soon as our finances allowed we married. However I felt that it was perverse that the government’s policy punished the disabled for marrying.

  • #4 Kitty

    I think DonS and Cincinnatus make good points in reminding us of our “communal duties and obligations”. I’ve been in leadership positions in the past where I was able to make what I thought were meaningful differences in the lives of others. However, I believe I part camp with them when I say that marriage and in particular having children are titanic decisions that should never be made in response to a one size fits all “Thou Shalt”.

  • #4 Kitty

    I think DonS and Cincinnatus make good points in reminding us of our “communal duties and obligations”. I’ve been in leadership positions in the past where I was able to make what I thought were meaningful differences in the lives of others. However, I believe I part camp with them when I say that marriage and in particular having children are titanic decisions that should never be made in response to a one size fits all “Thou Shalt”.

  • DonS

    Kitty, who said having children was a “titanic decision” “thou shalt”? All I said was that dissipation is not a good excuse for deciding not to get married and have children. There are plenty of other good reasons. But not that one.

    Dissipation, of course, isn’t a good reason for anything. It’s a terrible idea to while away one’s life in hedonistic self-fulfillment.

  • DonS

    Kitty, who said having children was a “titanic decision” “thou shalt”? All I said was that dissipation is not a good excuse for deciding not to get married and have children. There are plenty of other good reasons. But not that one.

    Dissipation, of course, isn’t a good reason for anything. It’s a terrible idea to while away one’s life in hedonistic self-fulfillment.

  • Cincinnatus

    Kitty: I echo DonS’s response to you, which also serves as a response to Klasie, Rick Ritchie, and other objectors. No one is arguing that every single person must marry young. Not at all. In fact, what we’re arguing is that the Church should abandon its universalist platform of abstinence only and encourage a more “situational” logic of marriage. Instead of pounding the podium in favor of abstinence for everyone, many young people should be advised, on a context-sensitive basis, to consider marriage.

    Does such an understanding of marriage and sexuality carry the danger of undergirding a new legalistic agenda? Sure. But so do all good ideas. That’s no excuse for discarding the whole idea altogether. It seems this discussion has been constructed as a facile polarity: either everyone should do whatever they want, sexually and maritally speaking, or everyone should marry young. I suggest that this isn’t a prudent manner of construing the argument or the issue at hand.

  • Cincinnatus

    Kitty: I echo DonS’s response to you, which also serves as a response to Klasie, Rick Ritchie, and other objectors. No one is arguing that every single person must marry young. Not at all. In fact, what we’re arguing is that the Church should abandon its universalist platform of abstinence only and encourage a more “situational” logic of marriage. Instead of pounding the podium in favor of abstinence for everyone, many young people should be advised, on a context-sensitive basis, to consider marriage.

    Does such an understanding of marriage and sexuality carry the danger of undergirding a new legalistic agenda? Sure. But so do all good ideas. That’s no excuse for discarding the whole idea altogether. It seems this discussion has been constructed as a facile polarity: either everyone should do whatever they want, sexually and maritally speaking, or everyone should marry young. I suggest that this isn’t a prudent manner of construing the argument or the issue at hand.

  • Grace

    Joe @ 39

    “So, I would ask them what they think love is. Are they waiting for some impossibly perfect person to come their way who will make them forever feel like a pretty princes or whatever the male equivalent would be? If yes, I would talk with them about what love really is.”

    Joe, I notice they you have neglected to mention the male, in such a foolish way, but rather dwell on the female. You are avoiding the real questions I posed, and instead, treat the entire situation as foolish. Love is not marrying the first , second or third person one dates – love is a very important factor, without it, there is no foundation.

    “Noticeably absent from the list are rainbows, skyrockets and other mushy things.”

    The above comment is pure nonsense – no one will listen to such sophomoric ideas about marriage, hence they are absent from my list to Cincinnatus @35 .. they are not relevant.

    I don’t believe anyone has a thoughtful answer, regarding my question @35 – - “What “discipleship” program would you suggest for the above situations I’ve mentioned?”

  • Grace

    Joe @ 39

    “So, I would ask them what they think love is. Are they waiting for some impossibly perfect person to come their way who will make them forever feel like a pretty princes or whatever the male equivalent would be? If yes, I would talk with them about what love really is.”

    Joe, I notice they you have neglected to mention the male, in such a foolish way, but rather dwell on the female. You are avoiding the real questions I posed, and instead, treat the entire situation as foolish. Love is not marrying the first , second or third person one dates – love is a very important factor, without it, there is no foundation.

    “Noticeably absent from the list are rainbows, skyrockets and other mushy things.”

    The above comment is pure nonsense – no one will listen to such sophomoric ideas about marriage, hence they are absent from my list to Cincinnatus @35 .. they are not relevant.

    I don’t believe anyone has a thoughtful answer, regarding my question @35 – - “What “discipleship” program would you suggest for the above situations I’ve mentioned?”

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 44

    “Instead of pounding the podium in favor of abstinence for everyone, many young people should be advised, on a context-sensitive basis, to consider marriage.”

    It isn’t just “favor” it’s what God has chosen. One either abides by “abstinence” or they can have sexual relations with the man or woman their dating until they decide it is REALLY LOVE?

    What do you consider “context-sensitive” in your opinion ?

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 44

    “Instead of pounding the podium in favor of abstinence for everyone, many young people should be advised, on a context-sensitive basis, to consider marriage.”

    It isn’t just “favor” it’s what God has chosen. One either abides by “abstinence” or they can have sexual relations with the man or woman their dating until they decide it is REALLY LOVE?

    What do you consider “context-sensitive” in your opinion ?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Marriage in early 20′s is an excellent idea. Most men who “aren’t ready for marriage” and who need to “wait in order to grow up” aren’t using those ten extra years to mature or save money.”

    This statement is far more true of women than men. Popular myth not withstanding.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Marriage in early 20′s is an excellent idea. Most men who “aren’t ready for marriage” and who need to “wait in order to grow up” aren’t using those ten extra years to mature or save money.”

    This statement is far more true of women than men. Popular myth not withstanding.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The majority of the single men in their late 20s and 30s at my firm are immature dolts. Highly intelligent but filled this idea that they are supposed to drink, sleep around and take nothing seriously other than their jobs. But this is what our pop culture teaches them is right for a young professional man

    Ditto for the women.

    By the time they wake up, they are rather old, used and therefore undesirable.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The majority of the single men in their late 20s and 30s at my firm are immature dolts. Highly intelligent but filled this idea that they are supposed to drink, sleep around and take nothing seriously other than their jobs. But this is what our pop culture teaches them is right for a young professional man

    Ditto for the women.

    By the time they wake up, they are rather old, used and therefore undesirable.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Great book on normal development vs. culturally constructed development.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Against-Adolescence-Rediscovering/dp/188495670X

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Great book on normal development vs. culturally constructed development.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Against-Adolescence-Rediscovering/dp/188495670X

  • Grace

    sg @ 47

    You took the comment from Booklover @4, if anyone is interested as to where it originated from.

    YOU WROTE: “This statement is far more true of women than men. Popular myth not withstanding.” – -

    It’s true of both sexes. It’s also a fact that men and women, who are seeking careers in fields that require extended periods of education, such as law and medicine are goal oriented, for a certain period of time in their lives – not all, but some put marriage off for a few extra years.

  • Grace

    sg @ 47

    You took the comment from Booklover @4, if anyone is interested as to where it originated from.

    YOU WROTE: “This statement is far more true of women than men. Popular myth not withstanding.” – -

    It’s true of both sexes. It’s also a fact that men and women, who are seeking careers in fields that require extended periods of education, such as law and medicine are goal oriented, for a certain period of time in their lives – not all, but some put marriage off for a few extra years.

  • Grace

    I believe something many here are forgetting, or perhaps reject, is this; all too many young people from 15 up are dabbling in sex. It’s not love, it’s lust.

    If churches are really interested, it would be benefit young males and females to understand how early sexual activity, minus marriage, impacts their lives. It doesn’t just destroy the relationship with Christ, it leaves them empty, with nothing but grief and pain. There is nothing positive when one gives another something of themselves that should be saved as a gift for the one they fall in love with.

    Churches need to enter the realm of early sexual relationships, with those who attend their church. I think most parents would be grateful for such a ministry; perhaps in the form of a retreat, within the church.

  • Grace

    I believe something many here are forgetting, or perhaps reject, is this; all too many young people from 15 up are dabbling in sex. It’s not love, it’s lust.

    If churches are really interested, it would be benefit young males and females to understand how early sexual activity, minus marriage, impacts their lives. It doesn’t just destroy the relationship with Christ, it leaves them empty, with nothing but grief and pain. There is nothing positive when one gives another something of themselves that should be saved as a gift for the one they fall in love with.

    Churches need to enter the realm of early sexual relationships, with those who attend their church. I think most parents would be grateful for such a ministry; perhaps in the form of a retreat, within the church.

  • Michael B.

    “I hate to say this, but some of these folks who criticize these unmarried people without children for their lack of responsibilities probably feel a certain amount of resentment towards them, and sometimes envy. It’s almost a sort of “if I have to do this, then you should too”.

    Have you ever heard a drafted veteran talk about draft dodgers? It’s eerily similar. He will tell you how lazy and irresponsible draft dodgers are and how bad they are for the country, and then afterwards will tell you about how the military made him into the man he is today.

    Nevertheless, I do feel a certain amount of empathy for these people who resent these young adults who aren’t getting married and having kids. Many of us take it for granted that people get married and have kids freely. But for many, kids happen by accident or they are under a lot of pressure to do so. They’ve never known that it’s okay to be single and childless. And so they’re pushed into a life of responsibility and they will even use the term “duty” and it’s something they didn’t ask for. If marriage and kids is truly happy for you like it is for me, you don’t feel resentment towards people who pick a different path.

    On another note, the advice in this thread is probably some of the worst I’ve seen in this forum, and that’s saying something. Advising someone to get married and have kids because that will make him grow up? Yeah, that’s great advice. Maybe you can introduce your son to my daughter. Or marrying because you want to have sex and stay pure? Or probably the worst: having kids for the Good of the State? I hate to ask, but tell me these were not factors in your decision to marry and have kids.

  • Michael B.

    “I hate to say this, but some of these folks who criticize these unmarried people without children for their lack of responsibilities probably feel a certain amount of resentment towards them, and sometimes envy. It’s almost a sort of “if I have to do this, then you should too”.

    Have you ever heard a drafted veteran talk about draft dodgers? It’s eerily similar. He will tell you how lazy and irresponsible draft dodgers are and how bad they are for the country, and then afterwards will tell you about how the military made him into the man he is today.

    Nevertheless, I do feel a certain amount of empathy for these people who resent these young adults who aren’t getting married and having kids. Many of us take it for granted that people get married and have kids freely. But for many, kids happen by accident or they are under a lot of pressure to do so. They’ve never known that it’s okay to be single and childless. And so they’re pushed into a life of responsibility and they will even use the term “duty” and it’s something they didn’t ask for. If marriage and kids is truly happy for you like it is for me, you don’t feel resentment towards people who pick a different path.

    On another note, the advice in this thread is probably some of the worst I’ve seen in this forum, and that’s saying something. Advising someone to get married and have kids because that will make him grow up? Yeah, that’s great advice. Maybe you can introduce your son to my daughter. Or marrying because you want to have sex and stay pure? Or probably the worst: having kids for the Good of the State? I hate to ask, but tell me these were not factors in your decision to marry and have kids.

  • Grace

    Michael B @ 52

    You make some very good points.

    Some people are not able to have children. I have felt sorry for those who are hounded when questioned, “when are you thinking of have a baby” – there are those who don’t want to discuss their private lives with anyone, it’s none of their business.

    There are also those who, for medical reasons, which are private, are warned against becoming pregnant once again.

    I remember all to well a very good friend of mine telling me how painful it was when she was the one at every baby shower, to get a gift, because it was her turn next. She was my mothers age, and I loved her as a friend, as I matured, just as my mother did. I felt very honored that she shared such a painful time in her life with me.

  • Grace

    Michael B @ 52

    You make some very good points.

    Some people are not able to have children. I have felt sorry for those who are hounded when questioned, “when are you thinking of have a baby” – there are those who don’t want to discuss their private lives with anyone, it’s none of their business.

    There are also those who, for medical reasons, which are private, are warned against becoming pregnant once again.

    I remember all to well a very good friend of mine telling me how painful it was when she was the one at every baby shower, to get a gift, because it was her turn next. She was my mothers age, and I loved her as a friend, as I matured, just as my mother did. I felt very honored that she shared such a painful time in her life with me.

  • kerner

    As with so many issues, Christians who advocate for early marriage as an option for living a chaste life need to consider how to put their money where their mouths are, so to speak.

    When we complain (As Cin accurately does) that the world says of marriage “PUT IT OFF”, we need to consider whether we are doing the same thing through our own institutions.

    Maybe the most glaring example of this is Christian institutions of higher learning. What are they doing to accomodate married students? What are we doing to encourage the development of a means for younger people to get ready for the responsibilities of marriage in their early, as opposed to their late, 20s?

    The present model of higher education is based on the medieval universities, in which the students were, in fact, like monks expected to be single (though chastity and sobriety were hardly requirements).

    What could we do to improve on that model? Dr. Veith, what, if anything, does Patrick Henry do?

    I want to be clear that I agree with KK and larry that I’m talking about an OPTION, not a rule. But if we want marriage to be an option at an earlier age, we need to do what is needed to make the option a truly viable one.

  • kerner

    As with so many issues, Christians who advocate for early marriage as an option for living a chaste life need to consider how to put their money where their mouths are, so to speak.

    When we complain (As Cin accurately does) that the world says of marriage “PUT IT OFF”, we need to consider whether we are doing the same thing through our own institutions.

    Maybe the most glaring example of this is Christian institutions of higher learning. What are they doing to accomodate married students? What are we doing to encourage the development of a means for younger people to get ready for the responsibilities of marriage in their early, as opposed to their late, 20s?

    The present model of higher education is based on the medieval universities, in which the students were, in fact, like monks expected to be single (though chastity and sobriety were hardly requirements).

    What could we do to improve on that model? Dr. Veith, what, if anything, does Patrick Henry do?

    I want to be clear that I agree with KK and larry that I’m talking about an OPTION, not a rule. But if we want marriage to be an option at an earlier age, we need to do what is needed to make the option a truly viable one.

  • kerner

    Michael B:

    Ok, so what are “good reasons” for getting married in your opinion?

    Patrick Kyle:

    I get pretty tired of that excuse: Oh gee, if I get married, she might later divorce me and take half MY stuff and I might have to support my children from afar, which is the same thing as paying money to HER?

    Yeah, all that might happen. Or 75 years ago you could end up married for life to someone who couldn’t divorce you, but could hate you and cheat on you. Or, if she was smart, just hate you and make you miserable enough to cheat on her, and then she would REALLY have you by the (you know whats). Life was SO much better in the good old days…

    The divorce laws aren’t making bad marriages. Bad marriages are making the divorce laws.

  • kerner

    Michael B:

    Ok, so what are “good reasons” for getting married in your opinion?

    Patrick Kyle:

    I get pretty tired of that excuse: Oh gee, if I get married, she might later divorce me and take half MY stuff and I might have to support my children from afar, which is the same thing as paying money to HER?

    Yeah, all that might happen. Or 75 years ago you could end up married for life to someone who couldn’t divorce you, but could hate you and cheat on you. Or, if she was smart, just hate you and make you miserable enough to cheat on her, and then she would REALLY have you by the (you know whats). Life was SO much better in the good old days…

    The divorce laws aren’t making bad marriages. Bad marriages are making the divorce laws.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Kerner,

    Didn’t say I agreed with it, just said that I run into it often in many more places than I once did. It is a factor in dating and marriage whether we like it or not. I know a lot of people who weigh it out and in their eyes traditional marriage/kids/mortgage are not worth the risk/responsibility.( For the record, I have all three.) This is for a number of reasons not the least of which I stated above. Our society is experiencing a seismic shift in this regard, and other than an occasional scolding, the church hasn’t had much to say about it.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Kerner,

    Didn’t say I agreed with it, just said that I run into it often in many more places than I once did. It is a factor in dating and marriage whether we like it or not. I know a lot of people who weigh it out and in their eyes traditional marriage/kids/mortgage are not worth the risk/responsibility.( For the record, I have all three.) This is for a number of reasons not the least of which I stated above. Our society is experiencing a seismic shift in this regard, and other than an occasional scolding, the church hasn’t had much to say about it.

  • Michael B.

    I think Patrick Kyle has an interesting and valid point that we should consider in its own thread sometime. The laws are really slanted against men in the divorce arena. If one were to bring up the issue of gambling, we would all be against it due to the heavy financial loss that can occur. I recall in one of the National Lampoon Vacation movies, Chevy Chase loses $25000 at a casino. In a divorce, however, it is nothing for a man to lose 6 figures when you add up the house, cars, payments, etc. (And for the record, I have a wife, kids, and mortgage too.)

  • Michael B.

    I think Patrick Kyle has an interesting and valid point that we should consider in its own thread sometime. The laws are really slanted against men in the divorce arena. If one were to bring up the issue of gambling, we would all be against it due to the heavy financial loss that can occur. I recall in one of the National Lampoon Vacation movies, Chevy Chase loses $25000 at a casino. In a divorce, however, it is nothing for a man to lose 6 figures when you add up the house, cars, payments, etc. (And for the record, I have a wife, kids, and mortgage too.)

  • kerner

    Michael B:

    Interesting point, except it’s mostly baloney. Women are more often financially worse off after a divorce than men. Men on the other hand are more often worse off emotionally.

    You say, “the man lose[s] six figures when you add up the house, cars, payments, etc.” But what is really going on is a 50-50 division of the marital property. The man is not “losing” the half that belongs to someone else, any more than the woman is “losing” the half that the man gets.

    True, the woman most often has primary placement of the children, and the man most often is paying child support. But with primary placement the woman also gets all the responsibilities of being a single parent, which are time consuming and expensive.

    What the man loses in that case is control, not money. He was paying for his kids’ needs before, but then he was also in control of his own operation. After the divorce the man finds himself funding an operation controlled by somebody he doesn’t like, usually by having significant portions of his paycheck (in Wisconsin, it’s 25% of the gross wage for 2 kids) being deducted and sent directly to his ex-wife. This is particularly galling, because statistically women initiate about 2/3 of divorces. So men find themselves being dumped, having half the property they shared disappear, having their children move to another house, and being forced to support the children’s primary household (which is under the control of the person who just disrupted their whole lives).

    Under these circumstances men are often very unhappy, and they lose sight of the fact that despite it all, they are usually still financially better off than their ex-wives, at least for the first few years. And the women, who were usually the ones who made the decision to get divorced, are usually much more enotionally commfortable with the consequenses of a situation that they, after all, decided was better than their former marriage.

  • kerner

    Michael B:

    Interesting point, except it’s mostly baloney. Women are more often financially worse off after a divorce than men. Men on the other hand are more often worse off emotionally.

    You say, “the man lose[s] six figures when you add up the house, cars, payments, etc.” But what is really going on is a 50-50 division of the marital property. The man is not “losing” the half that belongs to someone else, any more than the woman is “losing” the half that the man gets.

    True, the woman most often has primary placement of the children, and the man most often is paying child support. But with primary placement the woman also gets all the responsibilities of being a single parent, which are time consuming and expensive.

    What the man loses in that case is control, not money. He was paying for his kids’ needs before, but then he was also in control of his own operation. After the divorce the man finds himself funding an operation controlled by somebody he doesn’t like, usually by having significant portions of his paycheck (in Wisconsin, it’s 25% of the gross wage for 2 kids) being deducted and sent directly to his ex-wife. This is particularly galling, because statistically women initiate about 2/3 of divorces. So men find themselves being dumped, having half the property they shared disappear, having their children move to another house, and being forced to support the children’s primary household (which is under the control of the person who just disrupted their whole lives).

    Under these circumstances men are often very unhappy, and they lose sight of the fact that despite it all, they are usually still financially better off than their ex-wives, at least for the first few years. And the women, who were usually the ones who made the decision to get divorced, are usually much more enotionally commfortable with the consequenses of a situation that they, after all, decided was better than their former marriage.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “marrying because you want to have sex and stay pure?”

    That was a huge one for me. Abstinence sucks.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “marrying because you want to have sex and stay pure?”

    That was a huge one for me. Abstinence sucks.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I have felt sorry for those who are hounded when questioned, “when are you thinking of have a baby” – there are those who don’t want to discuss their private lives with anyone, it’s none of their business.

    Amen.

    What a galling question to field. People who ask such questions need to be told that such information is private and that such questions are inappropriate.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I have felt sorry for those who are hounded when questioned, “when are you thinking of have a baby” – there are those who don’t want to discuss their private lives with anyone, it’s none of their business.

    Amen.

    What a galling question to field. People who ask such questions need to be told that such information is private and that such questions are inappropriate.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Women are more often financially worse off after a divorce than men.

    Sounds plausible. Assuming that is the case, and considering that women initiate 2/3 of all divorces, what does that say about women?

    My gut reaction is that many women have an inflated view of themselves and think they can “do better”? For example, I hear so many women criticize men for not finding them attractive even though they are not attractive by any rational measure. Yet these same women don’t find men who are comparable to themselves to be good enough. It is pretty funny when you think about it. Why exactly would a top 10% guy want a woman who is way below him in desirability? It makes no sense. Also, our absurd culture has totally lied to women by assuring them that they are still attractive (even more attractive LOL) at 28 vs. 18. The truth of course is that they are far far less attractive than they were 10 years earlier, but of course, they were too good to give the best years of their life to their husband. Those years were spent “giving comfort” to men out of their league or hot cute bad boys.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Women are more often financially worse off after a divorce than men.

    Sounds plausible. Assuming that is the case, and considering that women initiate 2/3 of all divorces, what does that say about women?

    My gut reaction is that many women have an inflated view of themselves and think they can “do better”? For example, I hear so many women criticize men for not finding them attractive even though they are not attractive by any rational measure. Yet these same women don’t find men who are comparable to themselves to be good enough. It is pretty funny when you think about it. Why exactly would a top 10% guy want a woman who is way below him in desirability? It makes no sense. Also, our absurd culture has totally lied to women by assuring them that they are still attractive (even more attractive LOL) at 28 vs. 18. The truth of course is that they are far far less attractive than they were 10 years earlier, but of course, they were too good to give the best years of their life to their husband. Those years were spent “giving comfort” to men out of their league or hot cute bad boys.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    kerner@55
    You seem pretty heated at the ones Pat Kyle mentioned, calling their reasons excuses. It was not clear to me whether you thought you were addressing Pat himself, or Christian friends of his, or non-Christian colleagues of his. I think we need to have an idea of the audience when we consider this.

    If the church is going to speak on this issue, it has to be evenhanded. If it is going to insist on early marriage, and willingness to have the spouse divorce, and payment of alimony, it seems that discipline against those who divorce for unbiblical reasons is also in order. Otherwise all we are doing is promoting the status quo. St. Paul forbade going to court before pagan judges. Does this not cover divorce on unbiblical grounds? If the church finds it too onerous to get involved here, then I don’t think the church getting heated against men who find the whole current marriage situation too onerous makes sense. I think that would qualify as laying heavy burdens on men’s shoulders and not lifting a finger to help.

    If “It is not good for the man to be alone,” then we should not be arguing the rightness of him being alone and broke, too.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    kerner@55
    You seem pretty heated at the ones Pat Kyle mentioned, calling their reasons excuses. It was not clear to me whether you thought you were addressing Pat himself, or Christian friends of his, or non-Christian colleagues of his. I think we need to have an idea of the audience when we consider this.

    If the church is going to speak on this issue, it has to be evenhanded. If it is going to insist on early marriage, and willingness to have the spouse divorce, and payment of alimony, it seems that discipline against those who divorce for unbiblical reasons is also in order. Otherwise all we are doing is promoting the status quo. St. Paul forbade going to court before pagan judges. Does this not cover divorce on unbiblical grounds? If the church finds it too onerous to get involved here, then I don’t think the church getting heated against men who find the whole current marriage situation too onerous makes sense. I think that would qualify as laying heavy burdens on men’s shoulders and not lifting a finger to help.

    If “It is not good for the man to be alone,” then we should not be arguing the rightness of him being alone and broke, too.

  • kerner

    Rick Ritchie:

    I don’t mean to seem heated. But I just think that a lot of the complaints such as those Pat mentioned are excuses not based in fact. Or put another way, the financial and emotional risks of marrying badly are not greater than they once were, although they may manifest themselves differently.

    Most of these excuses can accurately be reduced to:

    “why should I buy a cow when I am getting ice cream for free?”

  • kerner

    Rick Ritchie:

    I don’t mean to seem heated. But I just think that a lot of the complaints such as those Pat mentioned are excuses not based in fact. Or put another way, the financial and emotional risks of marrying badly are not greater than they once were, although they may manifest themselves differently.

    Most of these excuses can accurately be reduced to:

    “why should I buy a cow when I am getting ice cream for free?”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    If the church is going to speak on this issue, it has to be evenhanded. If it is going to insist on early marriage,

    Straw man alert.

    No one has suggested the church insist on early marriage. Rather, we merely point out that it should not be discouraged because there is nothing unbiblical about an 18 year old man or woman getting married even though our culture is now dead set against it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    If the church is going to speak on this issue, it has to be evenhanded. If it is going to insist on early marriage,

    Straw man alert.

    No one has suggested the church insist on early marriage. Rather, we merely point out that it should not be discouraged because there is nothing unbiblical about an 18 year old man or woman getting married even though our culture is now dead set against it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “why should I buy a cow when I am getting ice cream for free?”

    But, what is the answer to that question?

    I mean seriously. If a college guy can get lots of action from a girl or girls aged 18-22, why marry?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “why should I buy a cow when I am getting ice cream for free?”

    But, what is the answer to that question?

    I mean seriously. If a college guy can get lots of action from a girl or girls aged 18-22, why marry?

  • Grace

    If one looks upon early marriage as an escape, avoiding fornication, they are marrying for the wrong reason. Sex is no reason to walk down the aisle reason is immature.

    Marriage off, and on, can be hard work, lots of “forgiving” and “I’m sorry” – if divorce is an option, it can only be attained (if one is a Christian Believer) if it’s Biblical. Going down any other road, no matter how old or young someone was when they married is not the parameter in which one makes such a decision.

    There are results from divorce, since the boundaries, (sexual sin) have been crossed, since it’s the only excuse that can be made, to obtain a divorce, Biblically.

    When people married years ago, they lived a much different life style. Much of their lives were spent on farms, cultivating the land, raising animals for food. Today that’s not the case, the entire western world is a much different place then it was decades ago. Medicine, health, technology, hospitals, schools, and many other avenues that require trained personnel. We don’t grow all our own food, nor do we raise cattle, sheep, chickens to feed ourselves and sell. Yes, those who married long ago, could and did marry, .. their lives were difficult, with hard work, endless hours, the loss of children and family to disease, and accidents. We don’t live those kinds of lives now, we live in an industrialized country, which depends upon educated, trained people for thousands of positions. Marrying young doesn’t have very many advantages, unless you’re stuck on sex as a reason.

  • Grace

    If one looks upon early marriage as an escape, avoiding fornication, they are marrying for the wrong reason. Sex is no reason to walk down the aisle reason is immature.

    Marriage off, and on, can be hard work, lots of “forgiving” and “I’m sorry” – if divorce is an option, it can only be attained (if one is a Christian Believer) if it’s Biblical. Going down any other road, no matter how old or young someone was when they married is not the parameter in which one makes such a decision.

    There are results from divorce, since the boundaries, (sexual sin) have been crossed, since it’s the only excuse that can be made, to obtain a divorce, Biblically.

    When people married years ago, they lived a much different life style. Much of their lives were spent on farms, cultivating the land, raising animals for food. Today that’s not the case, the entire western world is a much different place then it was decades ago. Medicine, health, technology, hospitals, schools, and many other avenues that require trained personnel. We don’t grow all our own food, nor do we raise cattle, sheep, chickens to feed ourselves and sell. Yes, those who married long ago, could and did marry, .. their lives were difficult, with hard work, endless hours, the loss of children and family to disease, and accidents. We don’t live those kinds of lives now, we live in an industrialized country, which depends upon educated, trained people for thousands of positions. Marrying young doesn’t have very many advantages, unless you’re stuck on sex as a reason.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    sg@64

    When I read kerner’s post @55, which I cited, he spoke of “excuses.” If you need an excuse to get out of it, then something is probably being insisted upon. As to what the rest of you are collectively arguing for, how would I know that? I can only respond to what you are individually arguing for. I cannot assume that because someone speaks approvingly of something said in the original post that they espouse the whole post, nor that because they criticize the post, that they reject the entire thing.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    sg@64

    When I read kerner’s post @55, which I cited, he spoke of “excuses.” If you need an excuse to get out of it, then something is probably being insisted upon. As to what the rest of you are collectively arguing for, how would I know that? I can only respond to what you are individually arguing for. I cannot assume that because someone speaks approvingly of something said in the original post that they espouse the whole post, nor that because they criticize the post, that they reject the entire thing.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    “Or put another way, the financial and emotional risks of marrying badly are not greater than they once were, although they may manifest themselves differently.”

    Pat may have brought up his point by referring to colleagues of his. That points to the fact that from a secular this-worldly perspective, marriage has little to offer men. Lionel Tiger has researched this from an anthropological perspective, and said that the one key thing that marriage has offered men in the past was connection with their offspring. I think that is what has changed. Not finances, but the fact that we no longer have an arrangement such that when a man fathers kids, he will get to see them. Given that, I don’t see arguing that nothing has changed, or it has only changed for the good.

    The old patriarchy ensured men handing down their values in the family. States prefer to loosen such ties so that only the state’s values get passed down. Which are whatever values make it possible for the state to have more power. Usually the state must be the chief benefactor to do so. But now it has found a way to replace the father’s role in the family, while keeping him paying for its social vision. If you look at this from the perspective of the state, it is clear to see who the winner is.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    “Or put another way, the financial and emotional risks of marrying badly are not greater than they once were, although they may manifest themselves differently.”

    Pat may have brought up his point by referring to colleagues of his. That points to the fact that from a secular this-worldly perspective, marriage has little to offer men. Lionel Tiger has researched this from an anthropological perspective, and said that the one key thing that marriage has offered men in the past was connection with their offspring. I think that is what has changed. Not finances, but the fact that we no longer have an arrangement such that when a man fathers kids, he will get to see them. Given that, I don’t see arguing that nothing has changed, or it has only changed for the good.

    The old patriarchy ensured men handing down their values in the family. States prefer to loosen such ties so that only the state’s values get passed down. Which are whatever values make it possible for the state to have more power. Usually the state must be the chief benefactor to do so. But now it has found a way to replace the father’s role in the family, while keeping him paying for its social vision. If you look at this from the perspective of the state, it is clear to see who the winner is.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @66 I don’t see earlier marriage conflicting with getting training for any careers. You can go to school while married. In fact, it is actually cheaper because some expenses are shared. You have sex anyway, but when you are married, it isn’t a sin. Seems like a win-win. I was married while in college and it was fine.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @66 I don’t see earlier marriage conflicting with getting training for any careers. You can go to school while married. In fact, it is actually cheaper because some expenses are shared. You have sex anyway, but when you are married, it isn’t a sin. Seems like a win-win. I was married while in college and it was fine.

  • Grace

    sg

    Regarding my post @ 66
    “I don’t see earlier marriage conflicting with getting training for any careers. You can go to school while married. In fact, it is actually cheaper because some expenses are shared.”

    Yes, one can go to university when married.. BUT, if you’re pregnant, or you have a little one at home, and perhaps another one on the way, you’re cheating the child who needs your attention. You’re squeezing education, study, home life, meals, and most of all the needs of your child. Children NEED to be taken care of, that doesn’t mean you wedge them into your life – add to that your husband, who doesn’t have much time to spend with the child, BECAUSE, he’s left with grocery shopping, perhaps cleaning the house, … and then of course his full day at work.

    I’ve witnessed all too often women who attend school after they are married with a baby at home. They are cheating the child, no matter how many excuses they come up with. Kids can’t wait for you to finish school, they don’t stop growing or getting older, they need their mother.

    Getting married before one has their education almost completed, is selfish.

  • Grace

    sg

    Regarding my post @ 66
    “I don’t see earlier marriage conflicting with getting training for any careers. You can go to school while married. In fact, it is actually cheaper because some expenses are shared.”

    Yes, one can go to university when married.. BUT, if you’re pregnant, or you have a little one at home, and perhaps another one on the way, you’re cheating the child who needs your attention. You’re squeezing education, study, home life, meals, and most of all the needs of your child. Children NEED to be taken care of, that doesn’t mean you wedge them into your life – add to that your husband, who doesn’t have much time to spend with the child, BECAUSE, he’s left with grocery shopping, perhaps cleaning the house, … and then of course his full day at work.

    I’ve witnessed all too often women who attend school after they are married with a baby at home. They are cheating the child, no matter how many excuses they come up with. Kids can’t wait for you to finish school, they don’t stop growing or getting older, they need their mother.

    Getting married before one has their education almost completed, is selfish.

  • Grace

    sg

    Regarding my post @ 66
    “I don’t see earlier marriage conflicting with getting training for any careers. You can go to school while married. In fact, it is actually cheaper because some expenses are shared.”

    If MONEY is your excuse, it’s a very poor one, if you have a baby at home.

  • Grace

    sg

    Regarding my post @ 66
    “I don’t see earlier marriage conflicting with getting training for any careers. You can go to school while married. In fact, it is actually cheaper because some expenses are shared.”

    If MONEY is your excuse, it’s a very poor one, if you have a baby at home.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Getting married before one has their education almost completed, is selfish.”

    Okay, skip the education.

    Different people are going to make different choices.

    Women who get educations are not better people than women who just want to get married and have a family. Only 25% of Americans even have a bachelors degree. The other 75% of the people aren’t bad people.

    I just disagree that college is absolutely the top priority above all other considerations. It is not more important than chastity or family.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Getting married before one has their education almost completed, is selfish.”

    Okay, skip the education.

    Different people are going to make different choices.

    Women who get educations are not better people than women who just want to get married and have a family. Only 25% of Americans even have a bachelors degree. The other 75% of the people aren’t bad people.

    I just disagree that college is absolutely the top priority above all other considerations. It is not more important than chastity or family.

  • Grace

    sg,

    Statistics aren’t the subject sg; early marriage, and the case for or against it IS the subject.

    You can throw in abortion stats as well, and then “crank numbers” to substantiate whatever you want.

  • Grace

    sg,

    Statistics aren’t the subject sg; early marriage, and the case for or against it IS the subject.

    You can throw in abortion stats as well, and then “crank numbers” to substantiate whatever you want.

  • Grace

    We have a huge society without an education, or skills, that would enable them to find employment. If for any reason, a woman finds herself either divorced, widowed or her husband unable to work, it will be her responsibility to care for her children; meaning, food, housing, education, clothing, all the bills, etc. IF her husband is ill, she will need to care for him as well.

    An education is VERY IMPORTANT!

  • Grace

    We have a huge society without an education, or skills, that would enable them to find employment. If for any reason, a woman finds herself either divorced, widowed or her husband unable to work, it will be her responsibility to care for her children; meaning, food, housing, education, clothing, all the bills, etc. IF her husband is ill, she will need to care for him as well.

    An education is VERY IMPORTANT!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “An education is VERY IMPORTANT!”

    Yeah. That is why we have compulsory education. Unfortunately students aren’t really trained to do anything and emerge from high school without job skills.

    The primary functions of women in the workforce have been to depress wages and increase competition for better jobs making it harder for men to support their families on one income. Also, higher income women marry higher income men and increase wealth disparities. So while a female doctor married to a lawyer makes her own family very much richer, she displaces a male from medical education which doesn’t help his family. The labor participation rate is about 62%. That includes people who are employed and the 8% seeking employment. That means 44% don’t have a job. It used to be that men were employed at 95%. That seems a lot healthier. Women have displaced men especially in white collar work. So while they aren’t necessary many times, they still take good jobs from men who need to support their families. That is what pushing women into college has gotten us. They also quit at a high rate because many never really wanted those jobs. So, while women should not be discouraged from seeking careers they want, neither should they be encouraged to seek them by pushy parents or social engineers who think it is “better” for them to have careers.

    Bureau of Labor statistics Labor participation:

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “An education is VERY IMPORTANT!”

    Yeah. That is why we have compulsory education. Unfortunately students aren’t really trained to do anything and emerge from high school without job skills.

    The primary functions of women in the workforce have been to depress wages and increase competition for better jobs making it harder for men to support their families on one income. Also, higher income women marry higher income men and increase wealth disparities. So while a female doctor married to a lawyer makes her own family very much richer, she displaces a male from medical education which doesn’t help his family. The labor participation rate is about 62%. That includes people who are employed and the 8% seeking employment. That means 44% don’t have a job. It used to be that men were employed at 95%. That seems a lot healthier. Women have displaced men especially in white collar work. So while they aren’t necessary many times, they still take good jobs from men who need to support their families. That is what pushing women into college has gotten us. They also quit at a high rate because many never really wanted those jobs. So, while women should not be discouraged from seeking careers they want, neither should they be encouraged to seek them by pushy parents or social engineers who think it is “better” for them to have careers.

    Bureau of Labor statistics Labor participation:

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

  • Cincinnatus

    As usual, Grace, you’re missing the point in spectacular fashion. No one is suggesting that people shouldn’t value education or love their spouses. The article is only suggesting that the Church ought to encourage early marriage when appropriate (not necessarily for everyone or all the time). This is a fairly radical idea in a culture where the typical options are either a) illegitimacy and single-parenthood or b) extraordinarily late marriages preceded by a period of either sexual frustration or licentiousness (not to mention waning biological clocks).

  • Cincinnatus

    As usual, Grace, you’re missing the point in spectacular fashion. No one is suggesting that people shouldn’t value education or love their spouses. The article is only suggesting that the Church ought to encourage early marriage when appropriate (not necessarily for everyone or all the time). This is a fairly radical idea in a culture where the typical options are either a) illegitimacy and single-parenthood or b) extraordinarily late marriages preceded by a period of either sexual frustration or licentiousness (not to mention waning biological clocks).

  • Grace

    sg

    “The primary functions of women in the workforce have been to depress wages and increase competition for better jobs making it harder for men to support their families on one income. Also, higher income women marry higher income men and increase wealth disparities. So while a female doctor married to a lawyer makes her own family very much richer, she displaces a male from medical education which doesn’t help his family.”

    That’s a complete falacy. You’re way off sg, you don’t have a clue what’s going on.

    Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare

    07/09/2012
    By Sally Nelson

    An opponent of President Barack Obama’s health care law demonstrates outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Thursday, June 28, 2012, before the court’s ruling on the law. (AP Photo/David Goldman)Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

    The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.

    Even if doctors do not quit their jobs over the ruling, America will face a shortage of at least 90,000 doctors by 2020. The new health care law increases demand for physicians by expanding insurance coverage. This change will exacerbate the current shortage as more Americans live past 65.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/09/report-83-percent-of-doctors-have-considered-quitting-over-obamacare/

    We need all the physicians we can get in this country, be they male or female.

    WAKE UP!

  • Grace

    sg

    “The primary functions of women in the workforce have been to depress wages and increase competition for better jobs making it harder for men to support their families on one income. Also, higher income women marry higher income men and increase wealth disparities. So while a female doctor married to a lawyer makes her own family very much richer, she displaces a male from medical education which doesn’t help his family.”

    That’s a complete falacy. You’re way off sg, you don’t have a clue what’s going on.

    Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare

    07/09/2012
    By Sally Nelson

    An opponent of President Barack Obama’s health care law demonstrates outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Thursday, June 28, 2012, before the court’s ruling on the law. (AP Photo/David Goldman)Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

    The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.

    Even if doctors do not quit their jobs over the ruling, America will face a shortage of at least 90,000 doctors by 2020. The new health care law increases demand for physicians by expanding insurance coverage. This change will exacerbate the current shortage as more Americans live past 65.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/09/report-83-percent-of-doctors-have-considered-quitting-over-obamacare/

    We need all the physicians we can get in this country, be they male or female.

    WAKE UP!

  • kerner

    Rick Ritchie:

    Maybe it’s because I am, being unclear, but I think we are speaking at cross purposes. I am saying that men are not being impoverished by divorce, at least not more than women are. Your response has been that men hate the current situation because they frequently lose their emotional connection to their children while still being compelled to support them. I agree with that statement. When a woman gets divorced, it seems like she sees her situation like a family portrait; everything stays the same, except her husband is airbrushed out of it.

    It is less true than it used to be, but frequently men still have to fight hard to stay in their children’s picture. During my career as an attorney, I have seen the child support collection system gradually increase in strength and efficiency. It is MUCH harder for dad to leave mom and the kids without financial support than it was 30 years ago.

    It is, in fact, more difficult for mom to freeze dad out of his children’s lives than it was 15 years ago. But legal help for dad to remain connected to his children lags behind legal help for mom to collect support money. But that is changing.

    Still, if you are saying that the balance of the ability to be cruel and inflict pain has become unequal, you have a point.

  • kerner

    Rick Ritchie:

    Maybe it’s because I am, being unclear, but I think we are speaking at cross purposes. I am saying that men are not being impoverished by divorce, at least not more than women are. Your response has been that men hate the current situation because they frequently lose their emotional connection to their children while still being compelled to support them. I agree with that statement. When a woman gets divorced, it seems like she sees her situation like a family portrait; everything stays the same, except her husband is airbrushed out of it.

    It is less true than it used to be, but frequently men still have to fight hard to stay in their children’s picture. During my career as an attorney, I have seen the child support collection system gradually increase in strength and efficiency. It is MUCH harder for dad to leave mom and the kids without financial support than it was 30 years ago.

    It is, in fact, more difficult for mom to freeze dad out of his children’s lives than it was 15 years ago. But legal help for dad to remain connected to his children lags behind legal help for mom to collect support money. But that is changing.

    Still, if you are saying that the balance of the ability to be cruel and inflict pain has become unequal, you have a point.

  • kerner

    I wonder what a physician who despises Obamacare is going to do for a second career. Jobs that pay better than that of a physician (even under socialized medicine) don’t grow on trees.

  • kerner

    I wonder what a physician who despises Obamacare is going to do for a second career. Jobs that pay better than that of a physician (even under socialized medicine) don’t grow on trees.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace @ 66, St Paul sure allowed people to get married because the found abstinence to onerous. Actually, he recommended it.

    It is better if it is not the only reason. But it sure ain’t a wrong reason!

    Personally, I want my kids to get an education before marriage is on the horizon. Especially the girls. Also, they should be able to support themselves with what they do/study. Interestingly, that is one of the stated duties of a Canadian Citizen – quoting directly from the citizenship guide:

    Taking responsibility for oneself and one’s family — Getting a job, taking care of one’s family and working hard in keeping with one’s abilities are important Canadian values. Work contributes to personal dignity and self-respect, and to Canada’s prosperity.

    See more here: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/discover/section-04.asp

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace @ 66, St Paul sure allowed people to get married because the found abstinence to onerous. Actually, he recommended it.

    It is better if it is not the only reason. But it sure ain’t a wrong reason!

    Personally, I want my kids to get an education before marriage is on the horizon. Especially the girls. Also, they should be able to support themselves with what they do/study. Interestingly, that is one of the stated duties of a Canadian Citizen – quoting directly from the citizenship guide:

    Taking responsibility for oneself and one’s family — Getting a job, taking care of one’s family and working hard in keeping with one’s abilities are important Canadian values. Work contributes to personal dignity and self-respect, and to Canada’s prosperity.

    See more here: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/discover/section-04.asp

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 79

    YOU WROTE: “I wonder what a physician who despises Obamacare is going to do for a second career. Jobs that pay better than that of a physician (even under socialized medicine) don’t grow on trees.”

    You would be surprised. There are more ways to use a medical degree than private practice. Physicians aren’t walking away without a plan. You, and the vast majority of people, cannot see it.

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 79

    YOU WROTE: “I wonder what a physician who despises Obamacare is going to do for a second career. Jobs that pay better than that of a physician (even under socialized medicine) don’t grow on trees.”

    You would be surprised. There are more ways to use a medical degree than private practice. Physicians aren’t walking away without a plan. You, and the vast majority of people, cannot see it.

  • kerner

    sg:

    I agree with part of what you say, but some of it is a product of the industrial age, not an ancient maxim. Before the industrial age, the family was more of an organic economic unit. Husbands and wives worked together to keep the farm, or store, or whatever family business profitable. The virtuous wife of Proverbs 31 was an economic asset to her family in several ways, and was recognized for it. Only recently has western industrial society first isolated women from the family economic system, and I don’t think it was a socially healthy thing to do. When husbands and wives worked together for the common economic good, they made each other’s lives easier and better in observable and tangible ways that neither party would want to give up lightly. That sort of teamwork was probably one of the kinds of “glue” that kept those older marriages together.

    Coming up with ways for married couples to mutually depend on each other is probably more healthy than to encourage one spouse to be entirely dependent and the other autonomous.

  • kerner

    sg:

    I agree with part of what you say, but some of it is a product of the industrial age, not an ancient maxim. Before the industrial age, the family was more of an organic economic unit. Husbands and wives worked together to keep the farm, or store, or whatever family business profitable. The virtuous wife of Proverbs 31 was an economic asset to her family in several ways, and was recognized for it. Only recently has western industrial society first isolated women from the family economic system, and I don’t think it was a socially healthy thing to do. When husbands and wives worked together for the common economic good, they made each other’s lives easier and better in observable and tangible ways that neither party would want to give up lightly. That sort of teamwork was probably one of the kinds of “glue” that kept those older marriages together.

    Coming up with ways for married couples to mutually depend on each other is probably more healthy than to encourage one spouse to be entirely dependent and the other autonomous.

  • kerner

    Grace:

    You’re right, I WOULD be surprised, because I don’t know. Which is why I asked the question.

    So, surprise me. What does someone do with a medical degree besides practice medicine?

  • kerner

    Grace:

    You’re right, I WOULD be surprised, because I don’t know. Which is why I asked the question.

    So, surprise me. What does someone do with a medical degree besides practice medicine?

  • Grace

    Kerner,

    YOU WROTE: ⚫ “So, surprise me. What does someone do with a medical degree besides practice medicine?”

    I’ll let you and all the others use your minds to figure it out, if you can – that way you can surprise yourself!

    You won’t be laughing if the health bill stands, and the doctor’s leave their practices. There are a vast amount of top doctors where we live, who have closed their doors to any NEW PATIENTS. These are mostly primary care physicians. The others, are very inventive, they are not going to stand by and work for nothing.

    All the hooting about women being educated, and taking away positions from men is a farce – it doesn’t exist. The best and brightest get the jobs.

    There are more than a FEW doctor’s wives who have come into their husbands office, and taken over the managerial end, they can do the work of two and a half people. They are faster, and they watch their husbands backs.

    But for your question, I won’t answer it – if you’re interested you can think it through for yourself!

  • Grace

    Kerner,

    YOU WROTE: ⚫ “So, surprise me. What does someone do with a medical degree besides practice medicine?”

    I’ll let you and all the others use your minds to figure it out, if you can – that way you can surprise yourself!

    You won’t be laughing if the health bill stands, and the doctor’s leave their practices. There are a vast amount of top doctors where we live, who have closed their doors to any NEW PATIENTS. These are mostly primary care physicians. The others, are very inventive, they are not going to stand by and work for nothing.

    All the hooting about women being educated, and taking away positions from men is a farce – it doesn’t exist. The best and brightest get the jobs.

    There are more than a FEW doctor’s wives who have come into their husbands office, and taken over the managerial end, they can do the work of two and a half people. They are faster, and they watch their husbands backs.

    But for your question, I won’t answer it – if you’re interested you can think it through for yourself!

  • kerner

    “But for your question, I won’t answer it – if you’re interested you can think it through for yourself!”

    Why not just answer me and give me a hand ? It seems kind of mean to know the answer and not give it to someone who’s just asking a question.

    Anyway I agree that a wife who helps her husband manage his business is a great asset to him.

  • kerner

    “But for your question, I won’t answer it – if you’re interested you can think it through for yourself!”

    Why not just answer me and give me a hand ? It seems kind of mean to know the answer and not give it to someone who’s just asking a question.

    Anyway I agree that a wife who helps her husband manage his business is a great asset to him.

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 85

    I won’t answer you. The reason should be clear!!

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 85

    I won’t answer you. The reason should be clear!!

  • Michael B.

    @sg@59
    “marrying because you want to have sex and stay pure?”
    That was a huge one for me. Abstinence sucks.

    Interesting, I suppose you bit the bullet on that one. My wife recently had a woman tell her that a major reason she got married was for money. I don’t know what you say to something like that.

    So you and your spouse were virgins went you went to the altar? Wouldn’t that make for a very awkward wedding night? I’ve always wondered what that must be like, going from zero to a hundred like that.

  • Michael B.

    @sg@59
    “marrying because you want to have sex and stay pure?”
    That was a huge one for me. Abstinence sucks.

    Interesting, I suppose you bit the bullet on that one. My wife recently had a woman tell her that a major reason she got married was for money. I don’t know what you say to something like that.

    So you and your spouse were virgins went you went to the altar? Wouldn’t that make for a very awkward wedding night? I’ve always wondered what that must be like, going from zero to a hundred like that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Coming up with ways for married couples to mutually depend on each other is probably more healthy than to encourage one spouse to be entirely dependent and the other autonomous.”

    Yeah, I agree.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Coming up with ways for married couples to mutually depend on each other is probably more healthy than to encourage one spouse to be entirely dependent and the other autonomous.”

    Yeah, I agree.

  • Cincinnatus

    Grace,

    It’s a simple and genuine question. You claimed that 83% of doctors are considering abandoning medicine because of the ACA. kerner pointed out that there are only so many vocations one can pursue with a medical degree that are as lucrative as medicine itself.

    In fact, such alternatives are so few that we can barely think of any. So we’re asking you, since you (claim to) have extensive knowledge of the medical profession. What, exactly, would medical doctors do other than practice medicine? It’s a simple question, but the answer isn’t obvious to me. Please inform.

    Also, the entrance of women into the labor market on a mass scale since WWII has, factually speaking, been a huge economic disruption. It’s has a incalculable impacts upon family structure, gender roles, employment statistics, etc. That’s just a fact. It’s not a good or a bad thing, but it doesn’t help just to bleat about how women are excellent workers. Yeah, ok, fine. But that’s not the point.

    /thanks for sidetracking us on one of the biggest tangents in history.

  • Cincinnatus

    Grace,

    It’s a simple and genuine question. You claimed that 83% of doctors are considering abandoning medicine because of the ACA. kerner pointed out that there are only so many vocations one can pursue with a medical degree that are as lucrative as medicine itself.

    In fact, such alternatives are so few that we can barely think of any. So we’re asking you, since you (claim to) have extensive knowledge of the medical profession. What, exactly, would medical doctors do other than practice medicine? It’s a simple question, but the answer isn’t obvious to me. Please inform.

    Also, the entrance of women into the labor market on a mass scale since WWII has, factually speaking, been a huge economic disruption. It’s has a incalculable impacts upon family structure, gender roles, employment statistics, etc. That’s just a fact. It’s not a good or a bad thing, but it doesn’t help just to bleat about how women are excellent workers. Yeah, ok, fine. But that’s not the point.

    /thanks for sidetracking us on one of the biggest tangents in history.

  • Cincinnatus

    MichaelB@87:

    Why, pray tell, should women get married, then? You’ve already stated that marrying for sex (i.e., forming a legitimate relationship in which sexual activity is morally acceptable according to the Christian church) and marrying for money (historically, one of the most universal reasons for marriage–to form an economically beneficial relationship, etc.). So what’s a good reason? Love? What’s love? What if your loving feelings fade from one day to the next?

    By the way, your claims about virginity are just stupid. How is it more “awkward” to marry as a virgin than it is to go from “zero to a hundred like that” with a random girl you met at a party in college, and with whom you intend to establish no meaningful relationship beyond the bed sheets? Since when does anyone have to be an “expert” at sex before it’s acceptable or advisable to marry? Please tell me you’re trolling.

  • Cincinnatus

    MichaelB@87:

    Why, pray tell, should women get married, then? You’ve already stated that marrying for sex (i.e., forming a legitimate relationship in which sexual activity is morally acceptable according to the Christian church) and marrying for money (historically, one of the most universal reasons for marriage–to form an economically beneficial relationship, etc.). So what’s a good reason? Love? What’s love? What if your loving feelings fade from one day to the next?

    By the way, your claims about virginity are just stupid. How is it more “awkward” to marry as a virgin than it is to go from “zero to a hundred like that” with a random girl you met at a party in college, and with whom you intend to establish no meaningful relationship beyond the bed sheets? Since when does anyone have to be an “expert” at sex before it’s acceptable or advisable to marry? Please tell me you’re trolling.

  • Cincinnatus

    that marrying for sex . . . and marrying for money are illegitimate justifications for marriage.**

  • Cincinnatus

    that marrying for sex . . . and marrying for money are illegitimate justifications for marriage.**

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 89

    There is no reason to divulge the advantages of those who’s profession is medicine, and physicians as to how they are going to further their careers, OUT OF THE OFFICE.

    Then you whine: “In fact, such alternatives are so few that we can barely think of any.”

    I can see that! Too bad.

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 89

    There is no reason to divulge the advantages of those who’s profession is medicine, and physicians as to how they are going to further their careers, OUT OF THE OFFICE.

    Then you whine: “In fact, such alternatives are so few that we can barely think of any.”

    I can see that! Too bad.

  • kerner

    Michael B @87:

    I don’t know who said this, but its not original with me:

    “Jackie married Jack Kennedy for love and didn’t get it. She married Aristotle Onasis for money and got it. Which one was the successful marriage?”

    But from your comment, I asume that you don’t think money is a good reason to get married either…

    Which is interesting, because economics is A reason (not the only reason) that most people, particularly women, decide to marry.

  • kerner

    Michael B @87:

    I don’t know who said this, but its not original with me:

    “Jackie married Jack Kennedy for love and didn’t get it. She married Aristotle Onasis for money and got it. Which one was the successful marriage?”

    But from your comment, I asume that you don’t think money is a good reason to get married either…

    Which is interesting, because economics is A reason (not the only reason) that most people, particularly women, decide to marry.

  • Patrick Kyle

    kerner@58, you said, :After the divorce the man finds himself funding an operation controlled by somebody he doesn’t like, usually by having significant portions of his paycheck (in Wisconsin, it’s 25% of the gross wage for 2 kids) being deducted and sent directly to his ex-wife. This is particularly galling, because statistically women initiate about 2/3 of divorces. So men find themselves being dumped, having half the property they shared disappear, having their children move to another house, and being forced to support the children’s primary household (which is under the control of the person who just disrupted their whole lives).”

    Exactly the point I was making. Don’t think that this goes unnoticed by single men, and especially those who have been through the divorce grinder.

  • Patrick Kyle

    kerner@58, you said, :After the divorce the man finds himself funding an operation controlled by somebody he doesn’t like, usually by having significant portions of his paycheck (in Wisconsin, it’s 25% of the gross wage for 2 kids) being deducted and sent directly to his ex-wife. This is particularly galling, because statistically women initiate about 2/3 of divorces. So men find themselves being dumped, having half the property they shared disappear, having their children move to another house, and being forced to support the children’s primary household (which is under the control of the person who just disrupted their whole lives).”

    Exactly the point I was making. Don’t think that this goes unnoticed by single men, and especially those who have been through the divorce grinder.

  • kerner

    Grace:

    OK so you know the answer, but you’re not gonna tell. Too bad, too bad, nyah nyah nyah…

    How old are you? Six?

  • kerner

    Grace:

    OK so you know the answer, but you’re not gonna tell. Too bad, too bad, nyah nyah nyah…

    How old are you? Six?

  • Cincinnatus

    Grace@92:

    What is there to “divulge”? Are alternatives to the medical profession a closely-held secret among doctors that can’t be shared with the public?

    No. You’re just full of bollocks and, as kerner pointed out, are just acting like a six-year-old.

  • Cincinnatus

    Grace@92:

    What is there to “divulge”? Are alternatives to the medical profession a closely-held secret among doctors that can’t be shared with the public?

    No. You’re just full of bollocks and, as kerner pointed out, are just acting like a six-year-old.

  • Grace

    Kerner @93

    YOU WROTE: “Which is interesting, because economics is A reason (not the only reason) that most people, particularly women, decide to marry.

    Maybe where you live, or attended school. I have only known one woman who married for money. I haven’t heard that one for a long time – the reason? – it’s NOT TRUE.

    Men often like to think that women are barefoot and looking for a man and roof over her head – LOL – - and if they hadn’t come along, she would be left to fend for herself, most likely living in a tent, riding her bike to the market.

    Some men have oversized, unwarranted EGOS, when it comes to women needing them to support and take care of them. It’s nonsense.

    Women marry because they love, and respect the man, not because of his financial sheet.

  • Grace

    Kerner @93

    YOU WROTE: “Which is interesting, because economics is A reason (not the only reason) that most people, particularly women, decide to marry.

    Maybe where you live, or attended school. I have only known one woman who married for money. I haven’t heard that one for a long time – the reason? – it’s NOT TRUE.

    Men often like to think that women are barefoot and looking for a man and roof over her head – LOL – - and if they hadn’t come along, she would be left to fend for herself, most likely living in a tent, riding her bike to the market.

    Some men have oversized, unwarranted EGOS, when it comes to women needing them to support and take care of them. It’s nonsense.

    Women marry because they love, and respect the man, not because of his financial sheet.

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus # 96

    YOU WROTE: “What is there to “divulge”? Are alternatives to the medical profession a closely-held secret among doctors that can’t be shared with the public?”

    In the ‘arena we now see ourselves, and the climate, regarding the health bill, there is no reason to share anything!

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus # 96

    YOU WROTE: “What is there to “divulge”? Are alternatives to the medical profession a closely-held secret among doctors that can’t be shared with the public?”

    In the ‘arena we now see ourselves, and the climate, regarding the health bill, there is no reason to share anything!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Women marry because they love, and respect the man, not because of his financial sheet.”

    Bull.

    Anyway, plenty of decent and responsible women date guys because they assume those guys have their financial house in order. From those who meet that criteria they often are able to find a suitable mate. People tend to marry people socially and intellectually similar aka compatible. It is reasonable and sensible. Nothing untoward.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Women marry because they love, and respect the man, not because of his financial sheet.”

    Bull.

    Anyway, plenty of decent and responsible women date guys because they assume those guys have their financial house in order. From those who meet that criteria they often are able to find a suitable mate. People tend to marry people socially and intellectually similar aka compatible. It is reasonable and sensible. Nothing untoward.

  • Grace

    sg @ 99

    You can “bull” all you like – you’re wrong. Maybe your friends and associates married for money, but I have not encountered such nonsense, and the male EGO at work!

  • Grace

    sg @ 99

    You can “bull” all you like – you’re wrong. Maybe your friends and associates married for money, but I have not encountered such nonsense, and the male EGO at work!

  • Michael B.

    @Cincinnatus
    “So what’s a good reason [to get married]? Love? What’s love? What if your loving feelings fade from one day to the next?

    Interesting comments. I was listening to an interview with the author of “Eat, Pray, Love”, and she had some comments about marriage that were very similar to yours. She was comparing marriages in India to marriages in the West, and noted how much longer marriages in India tended to last. Her argument was that marriages in India are more “contract based”, like almost an economic contract. On the other hand, marriages in the West are based more upon love and feelings for each other. However, love and feelings can be temporal emotions, and when they pass, the marriage ends. On the other hand, economic and contractual arrangements tend to be much more stable. She made the observation that some places that used to have a more “contractual” arrangement in marriage are started to adopt the Western model, and when that happens, the divorce rate skyrockets.

  • Michael B.

    @Cincinnatus
    “So what’s a good reason [to get married]? Love? What’s love? What if your loving feelings fade from one day to the next?

    Interesting comments. I was listening to an interview with the author of “Eat, Pray, Love”, and she had some comments about marriage that were very similar to yours. She was comparing marriages in India to marriages in the West, and noted how much longer marriages in India tended to last. Her argument was that marriages in India are more “contract based”, like almost an economic contract. On the other hand, marriages in the West are based more upon love and feelings for each other. However, love and feelings can be temporal emotions, and when they pass, the marriage ends. On the other hand, economic and contractual arrangements tend to be much more stable. She made the observation that some places that used to have a more “contractual” arrangement in marriage are started to adopt the Western model, and when that happens, the divorce rate skyrockets.

  • kerner

    Michael B.:

    99.9% of marriages in human history have been more “contract based”. And at most times and in most places they were more durable than marriages today. So, were all those marriages somehow inferior to the marriages we make in this day and age?

  • kerner

    Michael B.:

    99.9% of marriages in human history have been more “contract based”. And at most times and in most places they were more durable than marriages today. So, were all those marriages somehow inferior to the marriages we make in this day and age?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    ” She made the observation that some places that used to have a more “contractual” arrangement in marriage are started to adopt the Western model, and when that happens, the divorce rate skyrockets.”

    Right. It moves the goal posts to subjective feelings that change rather than objective standards. Also, notice that the model in say India is also universal marriage. Everyone gets married and stays married. Not endorsing, just describing. That way a guy gets a social equal and he gets to marry her most importantly while she is still young and attractive but also before the other guys take her for a test ride. So, it is a more wholesome and satisfying arrangement from the get go.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    ” She made the observation that some places that used to have a more “contractual” arrangement in marriage are started to adopt the Western model, and when that happens, the divorce rate skyrockets.”

    Right. It moves the goal posts to subjective feelings that change rather than objective standards. Also, notice that the model in say India is also universal marriage. Everyone gets married and stays married. Not endorsing, just describing. That way a guy gets a social equal and he gets to marry her most importantly while she is still young and attractive but also before the other guys take her for a test ride. So, it is a more wholesome and satisfying arrangement from the get go.

  • Grace

    Today, most arranged marriages take place in third world countries. That would include almost all middle eastern countries (Pakistan, Iran, Sri Lanka, Nepal Pakistan, India, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Africa Africa – - You can count Indonesia and China.

    Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are the dominant religions.

    These are all third world countries, who would expect anything different.

  • Grace

    Today, most arranged marriages take place in third world countries. That would include almost all middle eastern countries (Pakistan, Iran, Sri Lanka, Nepal Pakistan, India, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Africa Africa – - You can count Indonesia and China.

    Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are the dominant religions.

    These are all third world countries, who would expect anything different.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @104 And the point? We are doing worse than the 3rd world?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @104 And the point? We are doing worse than the 3rd world?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Sg, maybe her point is that marriage for sex / money, both of which she says is wrong, are less evil than arranged marriages. The reasoning seems to be that that is because the people who do that aren’t Christians, or wealthy.

    Makes no sense, but then did you expect it to?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Sg, maybe her point is that marriage for sex / money, both of which she says is wrong, are less evil than arranged marriages. The reasoning seems to be that that is because the people who do that aren’t Christians, or wealthy.

    Makes no sense, but then did you expect it to?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Marriage for sex is wrong? Who knew? Absurd of course because sex is specifically a marital duty. Of course we marry for sex. Duh. Marrying for money is really just to make sure your kids don’t starve, so I don’t get how that is wrong, outlier gold diggers notwithstanding. As for marrying for respect, well yeah, but we respect people that we can’t marry and we aren’t attracted to for…sex!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Marriage for sex is wrong? Who knew? Absurd of course because sex is specifically a marital duty. Of course we marry for sex. Duh. Marrying for money is really just to make sure your kids don’t starve, so I don’t get how that is wrong, outlier gold diggers notwithstanding. As for marrying for respect, well yeah, but we respect people that we can’t marry and we aren’t attracted to for…sex!

  • Med Student

    kerner,
    Since you seem genuinely interested, and since Grace for some reason refuses to answer your legitimate question about alternative careers for doctors, here are a few that I can think of off the top of my head:
    Pharmaceutical company consultant/sales person
    Biotech consulting/sales
    Medical devices (probably only if you also have an engineering background)
    Academic research (tough spots to get, and already highly competitive, so unless you’ve got an “in” of some kind, unlikely to snag one of these jobs)
    Public health (need an MPH, and probably not that great paying unless you’re with the CDC)
    Military medicine (good luck making the same amount of money there! I’m in because it pays for medical school)
    All in all, there’s just not enough openings out there if 80-some percent of doctors really decide to quit but still want to work in the medical field and be well-paid.

  • Med Student

    kerner,
    Since you seem genuinely interested, and since Grace for some reason refuses to answer your legitimate question about alternative careers for doctors, here are a few that I can think of off the top of my head:
    Pharmaceutical company consultant/sales person
    Biotech consulting/sales
    Medical devices (probably only if you also have an engineering background)
    Academic research (tough spots to get, and already highly competitive, so unless you’ve got an “in” of some kind, unlikely to snag one of these jobs)
    Public health (need an MPH, and probably not that great paying unless you’re with the CDC)
    Military medicine (good luck making the same amount of money there! I’m in because it pays for medical school)
    All in all, there’s just not enough openings out there if 80-some percent of doctors really decide to quit but still want to work in the medical field and be well-paid.

  • Cincinnatus

    Med Student:

    Thanks for that information. It seems to me that the consulting/sales positions are the only plausible alternatives. Academic research, medical device development, and public health are really different “industries” altogether that require different credentials and experience.

    Anyway, this was a huge tangent. Recall that Grace’s argument went like this:

    1. SG noted that a woman who enters the medical profession–which, like most industries, offers a finite number of openings–displaces a male who might have become a doctor.

    2. Grace “rebutted” this claim by asserting that SG must be wrong because 83% of doctors are (allegedly) considering abandoning medicine because of Obamacare.

    You’ll notice that this argument is, in fact, not an argument–at least not a logical, relevant, or coherent one. And even if her rebuttal were remotely relevant, it’s incorrect, as you demonstrate, Med Student.

  • Cincinnatus

    Med Student:

    Thanks for that information. It seems to me that the consulting/sales positions are the only plausible alternatives. Academic research, medical device development, and public health are really different “industries” altogether that require different credentials and experience.

    Anyway, this was a huge tangent. Recall that Grace’s argument went like this:

    1. SG noted that a woman who enters the medical profession–which, like most industries, offers a finite number of openings–displaces a male who might have become a doctor.

    2. Grace “rebutted” this claim by asserting that SG must be wrong because 83% of doctors are (allegedly) considering abandoning medicine because of Obamacare.

    You’ll notice that this argument is, in fact, not an argument–at least not a logical, relevant, or coherent one. And even if her rebuttal were remotely relevant, it’s incorrect, as you demonstrate, Med Student.

  • kerner

    The concept of sex and money being factors in choosing a mate may be nowhere better summed up than here:

  • kerner

    The concept of sex and money being factors in choosing a mate may be nowhere better summed up than here:

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace, as always, thanks for continuing to be an apparently bottomless source of entertainment — if not of, you know, knowledge and information. Your behavior on this thread was particularly bemusing, in every sense of the word.

    I do feel compelled, though, to rebut one of the more semi-lucid things you said here (@66), as it directly touches on something in Scripture:

    Sex is no reason to walk down the aisle reason is immature.

    Questionable wording aside, this almost certainly directly contradicts what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7. As has been pointed out.

    I don’t know what you think is a good reason to walk down the aisle, but if it’s something like “love”, you’ll have a hard time justifying your position from Scripture. Scripture talks of love in marriages, of course, but not as reasons for getting married.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace, as always, thanks for continuing to be an apparently bottomless source of entertainment — if not of, you know, knowledge and information. Your behavior on this thread was particularly bemusing, in every sense of the word.

    I do feel compelled, though, to rebut one of the more semi-lucid things you said here (@66), as it directly touches on something in Scripture:

    Sex is no reason to walk down the aisle reason is immature.

    Questionable wording aside, this almost certainly directly contradicts what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7. As has been pointed out.

    I don’t know what you think is a good reason to walk down the aisle, but if it’s something like “love”, you’ll have a hard time justifying your position from Scripture. Scripture talks of love in marriages, of course, but not as reasons for getting married.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B. (@87), you continue to show a remarkably narrow worldview in your comments here — really, you must get out more — as when you said:

    So you and your spouse were virgins went you went to the altar? Wouldn’t that make for a very awkward wedding night? I’ve always wondered what that must be like, going from zero to a hundred like that.

    Wait, are you still married to your first wife? Wasn’t that awkward? Didn’t you need a few practice marriages to learn how to do things right? You know, a few disposable wives with whom you could do things wrong, so that by the time you married your current wife, you’d really know how to be a good husband?

    I joke, but then I realize this is more or less how society expects people to act these days, even if all the practice marriages aren’t, technically speaking, marriages.

    Anyhow, why would it “make for a very awkward wedding night”? Seriously. I want to know your answer.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B. (@87), you continue to show a remarkably narrow worldview in your comments here — really, you must get out more — as when you said:

    So you and your spouse were virgins went you went to the altar? Wouldn’t that make for a very awkward wedding night? I’ve always wondered what that must be like, going from zero to a hundred like that.

    Wait, are you still married to your first wife? Wasn’t that awkward? Didn’t you need a few practice marriages to learn how to do things right? You know, a few disposable wives with whom you could do things wrong, so that by the time you married your current wife, you’d really know how to be a good husband?

    I joke, but then I realize this is more or less how society expects people to act these days, even if all the practice marriages aren’t, technically speaking, marriages.

    Anyhow, why would it “make for a very awkward wedding night”? Seriously. I want to know your answer.

  • Grace

    If many of you believe that third world countries, who subscribe to arranged marriages is somehow an advantage, you might give some thought as to how they treat their wives. Talk to some of them who live in this country, if you become their friend (which isn’t easy) They shy away from anyone other than their own group, making friends with them takes time. If they have children, they are often afraid of going back to their country of origin.

    We are doing far better than third world countries. The reason? – women have protection from men who abuse and harm them. Third world countries don’t, for the most part, protect women. Our laws don’t allow women to be physically abused by their husbands or anyone else. That isn’t the case in the majority of third world countries.

  • Grace

    If many of you believe that third world countries, who subscribe to arranged marriages is somehow an advantage, you might give some thought as to how they treat their wives. Talk to some of them who live in this country, if you become their friend (which isn’t easy) They shy away from anyone other than their own group, making friends with them takes time. If they have children, they are often afraid of going back to their country of origin.

    We are doing far better than third world countries. The reason? – women have protection from men who abuse and harm them. Third world countries don’t, for the most part, protect women. Our laws don’t allow women to be physically abused by their husbands or anyone else. That isn’t the case in the majority of third world countries.

  • Grace

    To marry into wealth has nothing to do with happiness, or a successful marriage, you should all know that. To marry for sex isn’t a reason either.

    In this country we have the freedom to marry as we choose. IF young adults are truly in love, seeking God’s guidance, abstaining from sex, – their chances for happiness are far more likely, then those who rush into marriage.

    Churches play a big part, some offer wonderful pre-marriage counseling, and instruction, giving those who are planning to marry the opportunity to further understand what marriage is, and their role and responsibility, as husband or wife.

  • Grace

    To marry into wealth has nothing to do with happiness, or a successful marriage, you should all know that. To marry for sex isn’t a reason either.

    In this country we have the freedom to marry as we choose. IF young adults are truly in love, seeking God’s guidance, abstaining from sex, – their chances for happiness are far more likely, then those who rush into marriage.

    Churches play a big part, some offer wonderful pre-marriage counseling, and instruction, giving those who are planning to marry the opportunity to further understand what marriage is, and their role and responsibility, as husband or wife.

  • Grace

    The medical situation as of now, is far to complex for people to understand, unless they have careers within medicine. Going to school to become part of that field, even as a physician is far different then experience which trumps all the guessing.

    Keep up the ‘magical thinking. That’s what those who support the new health care bill have been doing for a long time.

  • Grace

    The medical situation as of now, is far to complex for people to understand, unless they have careers within medicine. Going to school to become part of that field, even as a physician is far different then experience which trumps all the guessing.

    Keep up the ‘magical thinking. That’s what those who support the new health care bill have been doing for a long time.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@114):

    To marry for sex isn’t a reason either.

    Once again, you flatly contradict the Word of God by claiming so.

    Show me where, in the Bible, you find mention of marrying for love.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@114):

    To marry for sex isn’t a reason either.

    Once again, you flatly contradict the Word of God by claiming so.

    Show me where, in the Bible, you find mention of marrying for love.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@115) also said:

    The medical situation as of now, is far to complex for people to understand, unless they have careers within medicine.

    I’m sorry, but I have to call it: BS. Pure BS. I know you have some kind of career “within medicine”, Grace, and I’m certain you’re once more doing that thing you love to do where you claim you’re an expert and hope that that convinces everyone of your argument so that you don’t actually have to use logic and knowledge, but …

    No. You had multiple opportunities to back up your highly tangential claim about doctors in this thread, and you utterly failed to do so. Do you have knowledge? Show us. Cards on the table. Put up or shut up.

    I see no evidence from you that you actually possess any kind of special understanding, regardless of what your career is.

    So, in summary: please. You want to convince us? Bring your game. Don’t just think we’ll all be dazzled because you claimed to know something but refuse to tell us about it.

    Until you can actually prove otherwise, I have more knowledge about medicine, medical care — or any other related area — than you do.

    Now prove me wrong.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@115) also said:

    The medical situation as of now, is far to complex for people to understand, unless they have careers within medicine.

    I’m sorry, but I have to call it: BS. Pure BS. I know you have some kind of career “within medicine”, Grace, and I’m certain you’re once more doing that thing you love to do where you claim you’re an expert and hope that that convinces everyone of your argument so that you don’t actually have to use logic and knowledge, but …

    No. You had multiple opportunities to back up your highly tangential claim about doctors in this thread, and you utterly failed to do so. Do you have knowledge? Show us. Cards on the table. Put up or shut up.

    I see no evidence from you that you actually possess any kind of special understanding, regardless of what your career is.

    So, in summary: please. You want to convince us? Bring your game. Don’t just think we’ll all be dazzled because you claimed to know something but refuse to tell us about it.

    Until you can actually prove otherwise, I have more knowledge about medicine, medical care — or any other related area — than you do.

    Now prove me wrong.

  • Grace

    Show me in the Bible where it states one should NOT marry for love?

    Joseph is an example of a man who was willing to work for seven years to marry the woman he loved. But instead got Leah.. he had to work seven more years to marry his true love, Rachel – that’s real love, and a perfect example.

  • Grace

    Show me in the Bible where it states one should NOT marry for love?

    Joseph is an example of a man who was willing to work for seven years to marry the woman he loved. But instead got Leah.. he had to work seven more years to marry his true love, Rachel – that’s real love, and a perfect example.

  • Cincinnatus

    As usual, the real problem is that Grace is viciously (but incoherently) attacking a straw man that she built herself. She seems to think that all of us are arguing that teenagers should “rush into” marriage just so they can have sex and money–even if they don’t love the other person.

    No one has said that. Love is an important aspect of the traditional Christian notion of marriage, especially when understood in the context of Paul’s epistles: marriage as a picture of Christ’s love for the Church (or even as an image of the love within the Trinitarian Godhead). Other examples abound: Ruth and Boaz, Jacob and Rachel, the “Song of Solomon.”

    But historically, practically, and even scientifically–studies show that women, often subconsciously, marry men who are or will likely be materially “successful”–subjective feelings of love aren’t the working foundation for marriage. And even in Scripture, they aren’t the prerequisite. Marriage as a social institution has always been maintained as an economically beneficial arrangement. Almost all marriages in all of history have been rooted primarily in an explicit awareness of these benefits. And, as tODD repeatedly reminds us, Paul specifically commands young men to marry as a means of assuaging their lusts. That’s in the Bible. Explicitly. Clearly. Undeniably.

    Whether “Third World” nations base their marital customs on economics or not is irrelevant, though I appreciate Grace’s attempt at a collective ad hominem: “Contractual and/or arranged marriages are wrong because Third World countries do it!” Yeah, Third World countries also grow corn and write constitutions. What’s your point?

  • Cincinnatus

    As usual, the real problem is that Grace is viciously (but incoherently) attacking a straw man that she built herself. She seems to think that all of us are arguing that teenagers should “rush into” marriage just so they can have sex and money–even if they don’t love the other person.

    No one has said that. Love is an important aspect of the traditional Christian notion of marriage, especially when understood in the context of Paul’s epistles: marriage as a picture of Christ’s love for the Church (or even as an image of the love within the Trinitarian Godhead). Other examples abound: Ruth and Boaz, Jacob and Rachel, the “Song of Solomon.”

    But historically, practically, and even scientifically–studies show that women, often subconsciously, marry men who are or will likely be materially “successful”–subjective feelings of love aren’t the working foundation for marriage. And even in Scripture, they aren’t the prerequisite. Marriage as a social institution has always been maintained as an economically beneficial arrangement. Almost all marriages in all of history have been rooted primarily in an explicit awareness of these benefits. And, as tODD repeatedly reminds us, Paul specifically commands young men to marry as a means of assuaging their lusts. That’s in the Bible. Explicitly. Clearly. Undeniably.

    Whether “Third World” nations base their marital customs on economics or not is irrelevant, though I appreciate Grace’s attempt at a collective ad hominem: “Contractual and/or arranged marriages are wrong because Third World countries do it!” Yeah, Third World countries also grow corn and write constitutions. What’s your point?

  • Grace

    Sorry that was Jacob, not Joseph who loved Rachel, and finally married her.

  • Grace

    Sorry that was Jacob, not Joseph who loved Rachel, and finally married her.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace vs St Paul. I know which one my money is on…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace vs St Paul. I know which one my money is on…

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So, Grace (@118), your “perfect example” of marrying for love not only involves a man who married more than one wife (and they were sisters, no less), but who married his first wife, through the deceit of Laban (and potentially implied drunkenness on Jacob’s part), for the sole reason that it would allow him to subsequently marry her sister. And, let’s not forget, while Scripture does tell us that Jacob loved Rachel, it makes clear that she was awarded to him as his “wages”. It also notes that Rachel’s beauty made her more desirable than Leah, which was perhaps why Jacob loved Rachel more than his first wife.

    Ah, yes, such a perfect picture of the modern concept of marrying for love, that one.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So, Grace (@118), your “perfect example” of marrying for love not only involves a man who married more than one wife (and they were sisters, no less), but who married his first wife, through the deceit of Laban (and potentially implied drunkenness on Jacob’s part), for the sole reason that it would allow him to subsequently marry her sister. And, let’s not forget, while Scripture does tell us that Jacob loved Rachel, it makes clear that she was awarded to him as his “wages”. It also notes that Rachel’s beauty made her more desirable than Leah, which was perhaps why Jacob loved Rachel more than his first wife.

    Ah, yes, such a perfect picture of the modern concept of marrying for love, that one.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Actually, Todd, a good reading of the Old Testament will cure many a idealistic, puritanical idea.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Actually, Todd, a good reading of the Old Testament will cure many a idealistic, puritanical idea.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    After the misrepresentation of HOLY Scripture, you gave yesterday @60
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/01/eat-mor-chikin-day/

    tODD @60

    “Remember:
    “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drink peach milkshakes, you have no life in you. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For Chick-fil-A sandwiches are real food and peach milkshakes are real drink. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes remains in me, and I in him.”

    Don’t expect me to take serious, anything you question, ask or state. My post, giving Scripture to prove how “deceitfully” you used the Bible:

    Grace @83

    1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;

    2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
    2 Corinthians 4

    This is but one example of how you twist- even the Bible.

    Over and over again, you twist my words, conjure up ideas and thoughts I don’t state, just to make a point you don’t have.

    Your bait doesn’t work.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    After the misrepresentation of HOLY Scripture, you gave yesterday @60
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/01/eat-mor-chikin-day/

    tODD @60

    “Remember:
    “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drink peach milkshakes, you have no life in you. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For Chick-fil-A sandwiches are real food and peach milkshakes are real drink. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes remains in me, and I in him.”

    Don’t expect me to take serious, anything you question, ask or state. My post, giving Scripture to prove how “deceitfully” you used the Bible:

    Grace @83

    1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;

    2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
    2 Corinthians 4

    This is but one example of how you twist- even the Bible.

    Over and over again, you twist my words, conjure up ideas and thoughts I don’t state, just to make a point you don’t have.

    Your bait doesn’t work.

  • Cincinnatus

    I think that the best part about Grace is that she doesn’t have a sense of humor. In fact, I suspect that she’s a robot.

    Maybe the comment boxes here should require a “CAPTCHA” entry.

  • Cincinnatus

    I think that the best part about Grace is that she doesn’t have a sense of humor. In fact, I suspect that she’s a robot.

    Maybe the comment boxes here should require a “CAPTCHA” entry.

  • Grace

    My post @124 – regarding tODD’s post.

    The Scripture tODD transposed is directly taken from Christ’s words, to HIS Apostles, during, what we know as The LORD’S Supper. I would think that no one, could or would TWIST it around in such a disgraceful way, and then have ‘followers who think it’s only “humor” –

    All the disagreements on this blog regarding The LORD’s Supper are well known. This probably is the most tell-tale comment, both from the individual who wrote it, and those who trundle behind him, as though it’s only “humor” –

    Remember this when you start lambasting everyone who disagrees with you about the LORD’S Supper.

  • Grace

    My post @124 – regarding tODD’s post.

    The Scripture tODD transposed is directly taken from Christ’s words, to HIS Apostles, during, what we know as The LORD’S Supper. I would think that no one, could or would TWIST it around in such a disgraceful way, and then have ‘followers who think it’s only “humor” –

    All the disagreements on this blog regarding The LORD’s Supper are well known. This probably is the most tell-tale comment, both from the individual who wrote it, and those who trundle behind him, as though it’s only “humor” –

    Remember this when you start lambasting everyone who disagrees with you about the LORD’S Supper.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cincinnatus, I think the robot theory is quite plausible. She has demonstrated on multiple occasions that she lacks self-awareness. And her programming is not very complicated – most of us can predict exactly what output will be generated given any specified input.

    Unfortunately, unlike Watson, her databases are small.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cincinnatus, I think the robot theory is quite plausible. She has demonstrated on multiple occasions that she lacks self-awareness. And her programming is not very complicated – most of us can predict exactly what output will be generated given any specified input.

    Unfortunately, unlike Watson, her databases are small.

  • kerner

    tODD @122:

    You left out that Jacob had two concubines as well as his wives, Leah and Rachel. But, for an interesting contrast, read the account of how Isaac married Rebekah in Genesis 24:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+24&version=NIV

  • kerner

    tODD @122:

    You left out that Jacob had two concubines as well as his wives, Leah and Rachel. But, for an interesting contrast, read the account of how Isaac married Rebekah in Genesis 24:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+24&version=NIV

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@126) said:

    The Scripture tODD transposed is directly taken from Christ’s words, to HIS Apostles, during, what we know as The LORD’S Supper.

    Bzzzt! Ooh, sorry, Grace, but thanks for playing!

    It doesn’t take a Bible scholar to notice that my comment was an allusion to John 6. Nor does it take a Bible scholar to note that John 6 does not take place during the Lord’s Supper. That would be John 13 and 14. John 6 takes place by a lake near Capernaum, not in an upper room in Jerusalem. Oh, as they say, snap.

    Okay, so maybe you’re not a Bible scholar, but tell us the one again about how you’re the only one here who knows anything about medicine, due to your great expertise.

    I guess it makes sense now why you said (@124):

    Over and over again, you twist my words, conjure up ideas and thoughts I don’t state, just to purple monkey dishwasher.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@126) said:

    The Scripture tODD transposed is directly taken from Christ’s words, to HIS Apostles, during, what we know as The LORD’S Supper.

    Bzzzt! Ooh, sorry, Grace, but thanks for playing!

    It doesn’t take a Bible scholar to notice that my comment was an allusion to John 6. Nor does it take a Bible scholar to note that John 6 does not take place during the Lord’s Supper. That would be John 13 and 14. John 6 takes place by a lake near Capernaum, not in an upper room in Jerusalem. Oh, as they say, snap.

    Okay, so maybe you’re not a Bible scholar, but tell us the one again about how you’re the only one here who knows anything about medicine, due to your great expertise.

    I guess it makes sense now why you said (@124):

    Over and over again, you twist my words, conjure up ideas and thoughts I don’t state, just to purple monkey dishwasher.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@125), fun fact: “CAPTCHA” is a fairly tortured acronym, standing for “Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart”. In case you hadn’t already looked up the Wikipedia article on that. Unfortunately, I think Grace passes the Turing test with flying colors, as evidenced by our own reactions to her, your latest hypothesis notwithstanding.

    Maybe hers is a different kind of technology problem. Maybe she composes all her replies verbally, but has unfortunately opted for the most budget-friendly text-to-speech program on an aging PC, rendering much of her intended keen analysis as utter gibberish. That certainly would explain my all-time favorite Grace comment.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@125), fun fact: “CAPTCHA” is a fairly tortured acronym, standing for “Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart”. In case you hadn’t already looked up the Wikipedia article on that. Unfortunately, I think Grace passes the Turing test with flying colors, as evidenced by our own reactions to her, your latest hypothesis notwithstanding.

    Maybe hers is a different kind of technology problem. Maybe she composes all her replies verbally, but has unfortunately opted for the most budget-friendly text-to-speech program on an aging PC, rendering much of her intended keen analysis as utter gibberish. That certainly would explain my all-time favorite Grace comment.

  • Grace

    The LORD Jesus Christ is preparing his disciples for The Last Supper, in John 6. This is a precursor of that which is yet to come, The LORD’S Supper. This should be apparent to anyone who studies Scripture.

    Making a joke, or “humor” as some like to define it, is mocking God, when distorting the true meaning. There is no excuse for such dishonest treatment of God’s Word.

    52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

    53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

    54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

    55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

    56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

    57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

    58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. John 6

  • Grace

    The LORD Jesus Christ is preparing his disciples for The Last Supper, in John 6. This is a precursor of that which is yet to come, The LORD’S Supper. This should be apparent to anyone who studies Scripture.

    Making a joke, or “humor” as some like to define it, is mocking God, when distorting the true meaning. There is no excuse for such dishonest treatment of God’s Word.

    52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

    53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

    54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

    55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

    56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

    57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

    58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. John 6

  • Michael B.

    @Todd@112

    “Anyhow, why would it “make for a very awkward wedding night”? Seriously. I want to know your answer.”

    Sure. So, you’ll have to forgive me, but the entire of a “contractual” marriage is very foreign to me. As is being a virgin on your wedding night. It’s as foreign to me as a dowry. And I think it’s unfamiliar to most Americans, but certainly not all. As other posters mentioned, around the world and in the past, the model you describe was probably the norm.

    I was watching part of a documentary on how a couple enters a marriage like this, and basically they aren’t allowed any physical contact until marriage. Their first kiss is on their wedding day. This is probably not the model you’re thinking of, but it was the model I was thinking of when I made my post. Anyway, I was thinking back to when I was around 13 and had my first kiss. And for myself, like I think for everyone, there is a certain amount of awkwardness. And I was thinking, imagine going to my 13-year old self and saying you’re not only going to have your first kiss all of a sudden, you’re going to also have full-blown sex all of a sudden. I think that would multiply the awkwardness a great deal.

  • Michael B.

    @Todd@112

    “Anyhow, why would it “make for a very awkward wedding night”? Seriously. I want to know your answer.”

    Sure. So, you’ll have to forgive me, but the entire of a “contractual” marriage is very foreign to me. As is being a virgin on your wedding night. It’s as foreign to me as a dowry. And I think it’s unfamiliar to most Americans, but certainly not all. As other posters mentioned, around the world and in the past, the model you describe was probably the norm.

    I was watching part of a documentary on how a couple enters a marriage like this, and basically they aren’t allowed any physical contact until marriage. Their first kiss is on their wedding day. This is probably not the model you’re thinking of, but it was the model I was thinking of when I made my post. Anyway, I was thinking back to when I was around 13 and had my first kiss. And for myself, like I think for everyone, there is a certain amount of awkwardness. And I was thinking, imagine going to my 13-year old self and saying you’re not only going to have your first kiss all of a sudden, you’re going to also have full-blown sex all of a sudden. I think that would multiply the awkwardness a great deal.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael (@132):

    the entire of a “contractual” marriage is very foreign to me

    Sure, but why are you saying that to me? I didn’t mention anything about “contractual” marriages. Really, you’re pretty much the only person talking about them.

    And sure, most Americans nowadays likely aren’t virgins when they get married (depending, of course, on how we define “virgin”).

    Their first kiss is on their wedding day. This is probably not the model you’re thinking of…

    An understatement.

    And I was thinking, imagine going to my 13-year old self and saying you’re not only going to have your first kiss all of a sudden, you’re going to also have full-blown sex all of a sudden.

    It’s instructive that the two things that inform your understanding of what it would be like to be a virgin on your wedding night are (1) a documentary that bears little resemblance to even the way most cultural conservatives conduct themselves and (2) an imaginary conversation with your 13-year-old self. Come on.

    Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, the reason your first kiss was so awkward when you were 13 was … because you were 13?

    And that maybe, just maybe, adults who are vastly more mature (even if they’re only, say, 20), who have committed to loving each other in a public ceremony (and all that entails), might have a lot more coping mechanisms available to themselves that were not available to your fumbling 13-year-old self? I mean, I hope for your marriage’s sake that you also possessed these skills to a greater degree by the time you got married, no matter how many women you’d slept with in addition to your wife.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael (@132):

    the entire of a “contractual” marriage is very foreign to me

    Sure, but why are you saying that to me? I didn’t mention anything about “contractual” marriages. Really, you’re pretty much the only person talking about them.

    And sure, most Americans nowadays likely aren’t virgins when they get married (depending, of course, on how we define “virgin”).

    Their first kiss is on their wedding day. This is probably not the model you’re thinking of…

    An understatement.

    And I was thinking, imagine going to my 13-year old self and saying you’re not only going to have your first kiss all of a sudden, you’re going to also have full-blown sex all of a sudden.

    It’s instructive that the two things that inform your understanding of what it would be like to be a virgin on your wedding night are (1) a documentary that bears little resemblance to even the way most cultural conservatives conduct themselves and (2) an imaginary conversation with your 13-year-old self. Come on.

    Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, the reason your first kiss was so awkward when you were 13 was … because you were 13?

    And that maybe, just maybe, adults who are vastly more mature (even if they’re only, say, 20), who have committed to loving each other in a public ceremony (and all that entails), might have a lot more coping mechanisms available to themselves that were not available to your fumbling 13-year-old self? I mean, I hope for your marriage’s sake that you also possessed these skills to a greater degree by the time you got married, no matter how many women you’d slept with in addition to your wife.

  • Michael B.

    @Todd

    “might have a lot more coping mechanisms available to themselves that were not available to your fumbling 13-year-old self?”

    Well, that’s the thing. In many senses, they are very much like my 13-year old self, especially the women. They aren’t able to support a family. They’ve never been with the opposite sex. They’ve never lived outside their home. They’ve never been out from adult supervision.

  • Michael B.

    @Todd

    “might have a lot more coping mechanisms available to themselves that were not available to your fumbling 13-year-old self?”

    Well, that’s the thing. In many senses, they are very much like my 13-year old self, especially the women. They aren’t able to support a family. They’ve never been with the opposite sex. They’ve never lived outside their home. They’ve never been out from adult supervision.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @134

    Hilarious.

    I remember pretty well being 13. And even then what you imply was not the case. Inexperience doesn’t equal lack of enthusiasm or interest. If you felt awkward, hey, I take your word for it. Not judging. I would say that such encounters are more thrilling and exciting than awkward. Which is why youngsters do it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @134

    Hilarious.

    I remember pretty well being 13. And even then what you imply was not the case. Inexperience doesn’t equal lack of enthusiasm or interest. If you felt awkward, hey, I take your word for it. Not judging. I would say that such encounters are more thrilling and exciting than awkward. Which is why youngsters do it.

  • Cincinnatus

    Michael B.:

    Is that really your argument against early marriage? Really? That your first kiss as a 13-year-old was “awkward” and therefore early (and/or virginal) marriage is a bad idea?

    Where do people like you come from? How do you fit under a rock so small?

  • Cincinnatus

    Michael B.:

    Is that really your argument against early marriage? Really? That your first kiss as a 13-year-old was “awkward” and therefore early (and/or virginal) marriage is a bad idea?

    Where do people like you come from? How do you fit under a rock so small?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B. (@134), it’s possible that Cincinnatus’ response (@136) to you is sufficient, but, well…

    In many senses, they are very much like my 13-year old self, especially the women.

    Yes, the women, with whom you must be such a hit, with attitudes like that. “Hey ladies, if you’re not making the sexy times with multiple men before you get married, then I consider you as inept, even as full-grown women, as my own pimply-visaged self of 13 years! But that’s not sexist or condescending.”

    They aren’t able to support a family.

    Right. The adult women who are getting married are not able to support a family, by virtue of the fact that they haven’t allowed multiple penises inside their vagina prior to their wedding night. It’s airtight logic, people! Might as well pack it up, Michael B. owns this one!

    They’ve never lived outside their home. They’ve never been out from adult supervision.

    They’ve never heard the dulcet tones of whispered condescending ignorance from Michael B. in a post-coital lecture on how he knows all about their execrable way of life from this movie he saw one time, and he’s only trying to save them from their own bass-ackward way of living, if he could call it that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B. (@134), it’s possible that Cincinnatus’ response (@136) to you is sufficient, but, well…

    In many senses, they are very much like my 13-year old self, especially the women.

    Yes, the women, with whom you must be such a hit, with attitudes like that. “Hey ladies, if you’re not making the sexy times with multiple men before you get married, then I consider you as inept, even as full-grown women, as my own pimply-visaged self of 13 years! But that’s not sexist or condescending.”

    They aren’t able to support a family.

    Right. The adult women who are getting married are not able to support a family, by virtue of the fact that they haven’t allowed multiple penises inside their vagina prior to their wedding night. It’s airtight logic, people! Might as well pack it up, Michael B. owns this one!

    They’ve never lived outside their home. They’ve never been out from adult supervision.

    They’ve never heard the dulcet tones of whispered condescending ignorance from Michael B. in a post-coital lecture on how he knows all about their execrable way of life from this movie he saw one time, and he’s only trying to save them from their own bass-ackward way of living, if he could call it that.

  • Grace

    Some, not all of you, are so anxious to jump on another individual who is giving you their thoughts and memory as to how they felt as young teens –

    Michael has been fair in trying to give you his assessment of what he felt, and how he remembers – your smug, ‘corny (yes I mean corny) answers and remarks, are juvenile.

  • Grace

    Some, not all of you, are so anxious to jump on another individual who is giving you their thoughts and memory as to how they felt as young teens –

    Michael has been fair in trying to give you his assessment of what he felt, and how he remembers – your smug, ‘corny (yes I mean corny) answers and remarks, are juvenile.

  • Cincinnatus

    Grace@138: No one is “jumping on” MichaelB. Rather, MichaelB stated a clear argument–something you often patently refuse to do. This is good. The problem is that his argument is manifestly stupid.

    Recall that, according to MichaelB, virgins shouldn’t get married because his first kiss as a 13-year-old was awkward. That, quite literally, is his argument. It is stupid. tODD and I are merely telling him so. Do you have something to add? Do you wish to defend this argument?

  • Cincinnatus

    Grace@138: No one is “jumping on” MichaelB. Rather, MichaelB stated a clear argument–something you often patently refuse to do. This is good. The problem is that his argument is manifestly stupid.

    Recall that, according to MichaelB, virgins shouldn’t get married because his first kiss as a 13-year-old was awkward. That, quite literally, is his argument. It is stupid. tODD and I are merely telling him so. Do you have something to add? Do you wish to defend this argument?

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 139

    Ridiculing someone because they share something on this blog, brings out you, and one or two others. You trundel behind, constantly, or lead, while the others stumble behind you.

    You quip: It is stupid. tODD and I are merely telling him so. – - do you know how many “stupid” things you both say on a regular basis? – or don’t they count?

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 139

    Ridiculing someone because they share something on this blog, brings out you, and one or two others. You trundel behind, constantly, or lead, while the others stumble behind you.

    You quip: It is stupid. tODD and I are merely telling him so. – - do you know how many “stupid” things you both say on a regular basis? – or don’t they count?

  • George

    Michael, do you not believe there is an incredible difference between virginity and chastity?

    tODD, ease up on the caffeine there buddy.

  • George

    Michael, do you not believe there is an incredible difference between virginity and chastity?

    tODD, ease up on the caffeine there buddy.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@140), yes, clearly you’re offended by people “ridiculing” others for what they’ve “shared”. Hypocrite.

    George (@141), … from my cold, dead, jittery hands.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@140), yes, clearly you’re offended by people “ridiculing” others for what they’ve “shared”. Hypocrite.

    George (@141), … from my cold, dead, jittery hands.

  • Michael B.

    @Todd
    That’s quite a rant! A little too much coffee this morning?

    @George
    absolutely. It’s the whole saddlebacking idea.

    @Cincinnatus

    “virgins shouldn’t get married because his first kiss as a 13-year-old was awkward”

    I don’t know if I’m not explaining myself well, or you’re just failing to comprehend. When did I say this? You make up some sentence and attribute it to me, then argue against it, and then strut around triumphantly as if you’ve won an argument.

    But hold on to your strawman for just a second. Imagine if instead of just stating the view “early marriage is bad”, someone actually said “early marriage should be prohibited”. And then let’s say they actually wrote their congressmen about why this marriage should be prohibited, and went to protests against it. Now think about your view on gay marriage. You’ll understand how more and more Americans are will be asking this question of you: “Where do people like you come from? How do you fit under a rock so small?”.

    @Grace
    Bashing each other seems to be part of the Cranach blog. :) For me, no one’s comments have ever bothered me one bit personally. Any Christian blog that goes into issues of doctrine and allows free speech is going to be like this. On another note, you seem to have a fair amount of jerks that follow you around on here.

  • Michael B.

    @Todd
    That’s quite a rant! A little too much coffee this morning?

    @George
    absolutely. It’s the whole saddlebacking idea.

    @Cincinnatus

    “virgins shouldn’t get married because his first kiss as a 13-year-old was awkward”

    I don’t know if I’m not explaining myself well, or you’re just failing to comprehend. When did I say this? You make up some sentence and attribute it to me, then argue against it, and then strut around triumphantly as if you’ve won an argument.

    But hold on to your strawman for just a second. Imagine if instead of just stating the view “early marriage is bad”, someone actually said “early marriage should be prohibited”. And then let’s say they actually wrote their congressmen about why this marriage should be prohibited, and went to protests against it. Now think about your view on gay marriage. You’ll understand how more and more Americans are will be asking this question of you: “Where do people like you come from? How do you fit under a rock so small?”.

    @Grace
    Bashing each other seems to be part of the Cranach blog. :) For me, no one’s comments have ever bothered me one bit personally. Any Christian blog that goes into issues of doctrine and allows free speech is going to be like this. On another note, you seem to have a fair amount of jerks that follow you around on here.

  • Cincinnatus

    Michael B.@143:

    Though I’m not surprised, I’m disappointed to see you borrowing debate tactics from Grace, who is, bar none, one of the worst conversants I’ve ever encountered in any forum or medium: rather than engaging my argument, you simply mock it (or rather, me).

    Please, by all means, elucidate your argument. What have I missed? Where did I interpret your claims uncharitably or inaccurately? I would like to know. This is supposed to be a conversation, and that’s how conversations work.

    Here’s your argument, as I discern it, to this point:

    Thesis: It’s a bad idea, you (at the very least) insinuate, for young virgins to get married.

    Evidence: When you were 13 years old, you had your first kiss, and it was somewhat awkward in a way that you don’t bother to define and for reasons you don’t disclose. Also, you saw a documentary about two people who didn’t kiss until their wedding day, though you don’t explain why this is relevant or important.

    Is that not your argument? Here’s my critique–the same ones tODD has lodged: First of all, extrapolating from your personal, anecdotal experience as a teenager doing something–kissing–that has nothing directly to do with marriage as a social or Christian institution is, at best, entirely fallacious. Anecdotal evidence, as any logician or social scientist will tell you, is really no evidence at all for the type of claim you’re trying to make. But if you insist on using an anecdote, at least make it relevant. For example, “I think virginal marriage is imprudent because I once knew a young married couple who were virgins on their wedding day, and they say it was a terrible experience and divorced on account of their sexual incompantibility.” But no. Instead you bring up an entirely trivial account of your first kiss as a middle schooler, which apparently gives you some kind of insight into the preconditions for a successful marriage. My first kiss, as it happens, was not “awkward,” but that doesn’t mean that young marriage between virgins is therefore a great idea. The whole thing is irrelevant.

    Second, you mumble something about “awkwardness”–your first kiss was “awkward,” implying that sex between two virgins on their wedding night would be “awkward.” Well, for one thing, you don’t even define what you mean by “awkwardness.” What is awkward? Embarrassing? Unpleasurable? Horrible? Something that will forever taint any relationship in which it occurs? It’s entirely unclear what you mean. And more importantly, it’s entirely unclear what an “awkward” first sexual experience has to do with the advisability of marriage. Are you implying that, if two married people have an “awkward” first sexual experience, they’ll never have a happy and stable marriage? That such “awkwardness” won’t subside with, say, practice? I hope you realize that, if this is your argument, it’s rather absurd, as tODD and I have tried to demonstrate.

    Anyway, please explain where I’ve gone wrong in interpreting your claims.

    p.s. No, I’m not biting the trollbait you toss out with your entirely inapposite reference to gay marriage. Stay on topic. We have had and will have plenty of opportunities to debate that topic, but not now.

  • Cincinnatus

    Michael B.@143:

    Though I’m not surprised, I’m disappointed to see you borrowing debate tactics from Grace, who is, bar none, one of the worst conversants I’ve ever encountered in any forum or medium: rather than engaging my argument, you simply mock it (or rather, me).

    Please, by all means, elucidate your argument. What have I missed? Where did I interpret your claims uncharitably or inaccurately? I would like to know. This is supposed to be a conversation, and that’s how conversations work.

    Here’s your argument, as I discern it, to this point:

    Thesis: It’s a bad idea, you (at the very least) insinuate, for young virgins to get married.

    Evidence: When you were 13 years old, you had your first kiss, and it was somewhat awkward in a way that you don’t bother to define and for reasons you don’t disclose. Also, you saw a documentary about two people who didn’t kiss until their wedding day, though you don’t explain why this is relevant or important.

    Is that not your argument? Here’s my critique–the same ones tODD has lodged: First of all, extrapolating from your personal, anecdotal experience as a teenager doing something–kissing–that has nothing directly to do with marriage as a social or Christian institution is, at best, entirely fallacious. Anecdotal evidence, as any logician or social scientist will tell you, is really no evidence at all for the type of claim you’re trying to make. But if you insist on using an anecdote, at least make it relevant. For example, “I think virginal marriage is imprudent because I once knew a young married couple who were virgins on their wedding day, and they say it was a terrible experience and divorced on account of their sexual incompantibility.” But no. Instead you bring up an entirely trivial account of your first kiss as a middle schooler, which apparently gives you some kind of insight into the preconditions for a successful marriage. My first kiss, as it happens, was not “awkward,” but that doesn’t mean that young marriage between virgins is therefore a great idea. The whole thing is irrelevant.

    Second, you mumble something about “awkwardness”–your first kiss was “awkward,” implying that sex between two virgins on their wedding night would be “awkward.” Well, for one thing, you don’t even define what you mean by “awkwardness.” What is awkward? Embarrassing? Unpleasurable? Horrible? Something that will forever taint any relationship in which it occurs? It’s entirely unclear what you mean. And more importantly, it’s entirely unclear what an “awkward” first sexual experience has to do with the advisability of marriage. Are you implying that, if two married people have an “awkward” first sexual experience, they’ll never have a happy and stable marriage? That such “awkwardness” won’t subside with, say, practice? I hope you realize that, if this is your argument, it’s rather absurd, as tODD and I have tried to demonstrate.

    Anyway, please explain where I’ve gone wrong in interpreting your claims.

    p.s. No, I’m not biting the trollbait you toss out with your entirely inapposite reference to gay marriage. Stay on topic. We have had and will have plenty of opportunities to debate that topic, but not now.

  • Grace

    Michael @ 143

    YOU WROTE: For me, no one’s comments have ever bothered me one bit personally. Any Christian blog that goes into issues of doctrine and allows free speech is going to be like this. On another note, you seem to have a fair amount of jerks that follow you around on here.”

    I don’t take what they post personally as well, they can’t help it. As for “follow” me around – they remind me of the 7 dwarfs, in fact I laugh when they begin their “Dopey” “Grumpy” “Sneezy” routine, ( “Sneezy” doesn’t sneeze, he just blows his lid most of the time when we don’t read his 4 foot posts — ie: expulsion of air gusting out of ears) :lol:

  • Grace

    Michael @ 143

    YOU WROTE: For me, no one’s comments have ever bothered me one bit personally. Any Christian blog that goes into issues of doctrine and allows free speech is going to be like this. On another note, you seem to have a fair amount of jerks that follow you around on here.”

    I don’t take what they post personally as well, they can’t help it. As for “follow” me around – they remind me of the 7 dwarfs, in fact I laugh when they begin their “Dopey” “Grumpy” “Sneezy” routine, ( “Sneezy” doesn’t sneeze, he just blows his lid most of the time when we don’t read his 4 foot posts — ie: expulsion of air gusting out of ears) :lol:

  • Michael B.

    @ Cincinnatus

    It’s a bad idea, you (at the very least) insinuate, for young virgins to get married. Is that not your argument?”

    Nope, not here. My argument about the wedding night was an off-hand comment. I didn’t mean the comment so much from a critical point as I did from a curiosity perspective. That whole culture is very foreign to me. And how would saying that the wedding night would be awkward would mean that the 2 shouldn’t get married? At most one would be criticizing one night in a marriage. That’s kind of a big jump you’re making there.

    If I were going to make a statement criticizing very young marriage,I’d attack it with something a lot more than an awkward wedding night. For example, I’d might have sited a study that shows the divorce rates of teenage weddings or something along those lines. To be sure, I definitely think a couple can be too young to marry. I’m not sure where I’d draw the line. I also think there are some really prudish ideas still in place in America. There’s something strange to me about a young man feeling guilty because he isn’t a virgin at 22.

    I did, however, think the idea of wanting to have sex being a major factor in getting married to be a bit odd too. You know, you think of a young man wanting to marry a woman, and his pastor or the woman’s father asks him, “Why do you want to marry her”? :)

    Cheers,
    Michael

  • Michael B.

    @ Cincinnatus

    It’s a bad idea, you (at the very least) insinuate, for young virgins to get married. Is that not your argument?”

    Nope, not here. My argument about the wedding night was an off-hand comment. I didn’t mean the comment so much from a critical point as I did from a curiosity perspective. That whole culture is very foreign to me. And how would saying that the wedding night would be awkward would mean that the 2 shouldn’t get married? At most one would be criticizing one night in a marriage. That’s kind of a big jump you’re making there.

    If I were going to make a statement criticizing very young marriage,I’d attack it with something a lot more than an awkward wedding night. For example, I’d might have sited a study that shows the divorce rates of teenage weddings or something along those lines. To be sure, I definitely think a couple can be too young to marry. I’m not sure where I’d draw the line. I also think there are some really prudish ideas still in place in America. There’s something strange to me about a young man feeling guilty because he isn’t a virgin at 22.

    I did, however, think the idea of wanting to have sex being a major factor in getting married to be a bit odd too. You know, you think of a young man wanting to marry a woman, and his pastor or the woman’s father asks him, “Why do you want to marry her”? :)

    Cheers,
    Michael

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Why do you want to marry her”?

    That is, “why do you want to marry this girl instead of some other girl?”

    Given that Pastor and Dad are adults, they already know why people want to get married. Do you think Dad and Pastor should suggest to the two young people who want to get married that it would be better for them to not get married and just have sex outside of marriage using contraception? That way they can ditch each other when they get bored of having sex with each other. In such a case, it seems a bit of a role reversal. The young people want to grow up and the adults want to hold them back contra biblical teaching.

    Some of this probably comes from the fact that people now have fewer children and have more interest in controlling them. Also, parents now make huge emotional investments in their children such that their children become part of their identity. So if Johnny does anything that isn’t currently considered cool or “smart” by this world, then the parents wear the shame. So if your daughter gets married halfway through college, then you aren’t cool in front of your friends. So you train your kids to do what will make you look good, rather than training them to do what the Bible teaches. And the Bible definitely teaches that getting married is the way to have sex.

    marriage = sex

    Interesting cultural note on marriage:

    With the fall of the Roman Empire in the West and the settlement by largely Germanic peoples in its former territory, the Church confronted marriage customs that were markedly different from those of the Roman Empire. For these people, marriage did not come about when the parties exchanged consent, but as the end of a process involving several steps. each of which was necessary to constitute marriage: a man’s (or his father’s) petition to a woman’s father for her hand (petitio). betrothal by public agreement of the parties’ families (desponsatio), provision of a dowry to the woman’s family (dotatio), the handing over of the woman to the man (traditio), and the physical consummation of the union by sexual intercourse (consummatio). Until all of these steps had been completed. the marriage was incomplete. [Reynolds. 75-88]
    Since decisions about the legitimacy of children and inheritance often hinged on whether a marriage existed, it was important to be clear about what constituted marriage. As the Church gradually acquired jurisdiction over marriage, it was forced to adjudicate matrimonial disputes. Two schools of thought emerged: the School of Paris, represented especially by Peter Lombard, held that marriage was constituted solely by the spouses’ consent in words concerning the present (as opposed to words concerning the future, which gave rise only to betrothal): while the School of Bologna, represented especially by Gratian. held that consent initiated a marriage but a marriage was not fully constituted (and. therefore, could be dissolved) until it had been physically consummated. This scholarly dispute with its enormous practical implications was ultimately resolved by a series of decisions by Alexander III and his successors in the twelfth century

    http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/THM_544_Marriage/05_Hist_Devt/001_hist-sum.htm

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Why do you want to marry her”?

    That is, “why do you want to marry this girl instead of some other girl?”

    Given that Pastor and Dad are adults, they already know why people want to get married. Do you think Dad and Pastor should suggest to the two young people who want to get married that it would be better for them to not get married and just have sex outside of marriage using contraception? That way they can ditch each other when they get bored of having sex with each other. In such a case, it seems a bit of a role reversal. The young people want to grow up and the adults want to hold them back contra biblical teaching.

    Some of this probably comes from the fact that people now have fewer children and have more interest in controlling them. Also, parents now make huge emotional investments in their children such that their children become part of their identity. So if Johnny does anything that isn’t currently considered cool or “smart” by this world, then the parents wear the shame. So if your daughter gets married halfway through college, then you aren’t cool in front of your friends. So you train your kids to do what will make you look good, rather than training them to do what the Bible teaches. And the Bible definitely teaches that getting married is the way to have sex.

    marriage = sex

    Interesting cultural note on marriage:

    With the fall of the Roman Empire in the West and the settlement by largely Germanic peoples in its former territory, the Church confronted marriage customs that were markedly different from those of the Roman Empire. For these people, marriage did not come about when the parties exchanged consent, but as the end of a process involving several steps. each of which was necessary to constitute marriage: a man’s (or his father’s) petition to a woman’s father for her hand (petitio). betrothal by public agreement of the parties’ families (desponsatio), provision of a dowry to the woman’s family (dotatio), the handing over of the woman to the man (traditio), and the physical consummation of the union by sexual intercourse (consummatio). Until all of these steps had been completed. the marriage was incomplete. [Reynolds. 75-88]
    Since decisions about the legitimacy of children and inheritance often hinged on whether a marriage existed, it was important to be clear about what constituted marriage. As the Church gradually acquired jurisdiction over marriage, it was forced to adjudicate matrimonial disputes. Two schools of thought emerged: the School of Paris, represented especially by Peter Lombard, held that marriage was constituted solely by the spouses’ consent in words concerning the present (as opposed to words concerning the future, which gave rise only to betrothal): while the School of Bologna, represented especially by Gratian. held that consent initiated a marriage but a marriage was not fully constituted (and. therefore, could be dissolved) until it had been physically consummated. This scholarly dispute with its enormous practical implications was ultimately resolved by a series of decisions by Alexander III and his successors in the twelfth century

    http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/THM_544_Marriage/05_Hist_Devt/001_hist-sum.htm

  • Michael B.

    @sg

    You’re changing the question that the father or pastor is asking. Moreover you’re changing their basic assumptions. For you it’s as if the father is really saying, “So you want to have sex. Why my daughter?”

    For a satirical take on your position that doesn’t seem to offer much in the way of satire:
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/desire-to-ejaculate-motivates-local-christian-to-w,798/

    ‘Throughout his life, 22-year-old Matthew Leske has been a devout Christian . A part-time prep-cook and odd-job yardwork handyman when not volunteering as a Bible witness to local shut-ins and nursing-home residents, the young Leske has never had much time for socializing with members of the opposite sex. Nevertheless, last week, Leske announced his intention to marry fellow Christian Luann Ruth Perkins, also a member of Holy Christ Almighty, whom he met on a church-sponsored Luther League hayride two months ago. Leske cited his irresistible desire to achieve sexual climax and ejaculate sperm without having to go to hell as the number one factor in his decision to propose marriage.
    “I really want to discharge semen,” he said. “I mean I really, really, really want to really bad.”

    Also, can you tell me how to quote passages like you do in the previous post? I had to just settle for putting quotes around it instead of using the different font.

  • Michael B.

    @sg

    You’re changing the question that the father or pastor is asking. Moreover you’re changing their basic assumptions. For you it’s as if the father is really saying, “So you want to have sex. Why my daughter?”

    For a satirical take on your position that doesn’t seem to offer much in the way of satire:
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/desire-to-ejaculate-motivates-local-christian-to-w,798/

    ‘Throughout his life, 22-year-old Matthew Leske has been a devout Christian . A part-time prep-cook and odd-job yardwork handyman when not volunteering as a Bible witness to local shut-ins and nursing-home residents, the young Leske has never had much time for socializing with members of the opposite sex. Nevertheless, last week, Leske announced his intention to marry fellow Christian Luann Ruth Perkins, also a member of Holy Christ Almighty, whom he met on a church-sponsored Luther League hayride two months ago. Leske cited his irresistible desire to achieve sexual climax and ejaculate sperm without having to go to hell as the number one factor in his decision to propose marriage.
    “I really want to discharge semen,” he said. “I mean I really, really, really want to really bad.”

    Also, can you tell me how to quote passages like you do in the previous post? I had to just settle for putting quotes around it instead of using the different font.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I don’t see what your point is really.

    People do get married to have families aka have sex. Everyone knows this, so asking people why they want to get married is pretty silly. No one ever asked me why I wanted to get married. It is like asking someone why they want a hamburger. You already know why.

    If you mean that people can have sex without marriage, yes, we know that, too, but it is very problematic. And the problems are far worse than marrying. There has always been prostitution, fornication, and all other manner of less organized less civilized systems, but they cause serious social problems that really hurt real people.

    It seems some want to magnify or emphasize certain low incidence and low impact problems of early marriage while at once minimizing and ignoring the far worse high incidence and devastating impact of problems we have now.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I don’t see what your point is really.

    People do get married to have families aka have sex. Everyone knows this, so asking people why they want to get married is pretty silly. No one ever asked me why I wanted to get married. It is like asking someone why they want a hamburger. You already know why.

    If you mean that people can have sex without marriage, yes, we know that, too, but it is very problematic. And the problems are far worse than marrying. There has always been prostitution, fornication, and all other manner of less organized less civilized systems, but they cause serious social problems that really hurt real people.

    It seems some want to magnify or emphasize certain low incidence and low impact problems of early marriage while at once minimizing and ignoring the far worse high incidence and devastating impact of problems we have now.

  • kerner

    Michael B:

    OK, I see the distinction at least. We think that sex outside of marriage is pretty much a bad thing to do. You, as near as I can tell from your comments, think that sex outside of marriage is a pretty normal and harmless (and maybe even a good) thing, so you don’t see why having sex should be a motivating factor in getting married. To you (I think, correct me if I have misunderstood) a person’s first sexual experience should be like that first kiss in middle school. Get the awkward social fumbling out of the way early, and when a person matures in any number of ways (including as a sex partner) that’s the time to get married. And if I interpret the implications of your comments correctly, that’s what you did, and you don’t see anything wrong with it.

    Am I right so far?

  • kerner

    Michael B:

    OK, I see the distinction at least. We think that sex outside of marriage is pretty much a bad thing to do. You, as near as I can tell from your comments, think that sex outside of marriage is a pretty normal and harmless (and maybe even a good) thing, so you don’t see why having sex should be a motivating factor in getting married. To you (I think, correct me if I have misunderstood) a person’s first sexual experience should be like that first kiss in middle school. Get the awkward social fumbling out of the way early, and when a person matures in any number of ways (including as a sex partner) that’s the time to get married. And if I interpret the implications of your comments correctly, that’s what you did, and you don’t see anything wrong with it.

    Am I right so far?

  • kerner

    Michael B:

    I re-read my previous comment, and I hope I don’t seem to be getting personal. If I interpret the implications of your comments correctly, that’s what practically everyone nowadays does, and you don’t see anything wrong with it.

  • kerner

    Michael B:

    I re-read my previous comment, and I hope I don’t seem to be getting personal. If I interpret the implications of your comments correctly, that’s what practically everyone nowadays does, and you don’t see anything wrong with it.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X