regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (06/27/85)
> >>I just think that commitment is the keyword here, but it does not >>necessarily have to be towards marriage. > Nice sentiment, Colin, but marriage IS commitment and the MOST > commitment IS marriage. > Rick Merrill > Check that. Marriage is A commitment. One of a number of possiblities. It amazes me that many people (like maybe one in the past 20 I have dis- cussed my situation with) see only _one_ outcome of an ongoing SO rela- tionship. Marriage is also a legal contract with rights and priviledges that are defined state by state. Marriage also carries a certain amount of social debris that a couple may not welcome. It may bear religious connotations to which the couple does not subscribe. On a personal level, I heartily disagree with your statement that the most commitment is marriage, but then, I don't know you, and I'm not about to get married to you, so it doesn't matter much to me. But, a word of advice, do talk it over when/if you decide to get married, since she may not see it in quite the same light. Adrienne Regard
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (06/27/85)
Check that. I meant to say " It amazes me that many people (like maybe ALL BUT one in the past 20 I have discussed my situation with) see only ^^^ ^^^ _one_ outcome of an ongoing SO relationship." Adrienne Regard
rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (07/03/85)
> > Marriage is also a legal contract with rights and priviledges that are > defined state by state. Marriage also carries a certain amount of social > debris that a couple may not welcome. It may bear religious connotations > to which the couple does not subscribe. > > Adrienne Regard Good point. I know of a couple who decided not to get married, but to just live together. They had children who kept getting hassled about their last name. It seems that the school board decided that the children couldn't use their father's last name because he didn't marry their mother. Well, to try and make things easier for their children, they finally got married. That was the end of a beautiful relationship. The fights started and they basicly fell apart. The story has a happy ending, though. They got divorced. Then they began living together. And they got along. And the school board couldn't say a damn thing about the kids' last name. Ok, the whole point to this story (and its a true one) is that some people can be committed to each other without having to get married and they know when they are better off. DON'T FORCE SOMETHING ON SOMEONE THAT THEY FEEL IS NOT RIGHT. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (07/05/85)
> > Good point. I know of a couple who decided not to get married, but to > just live together. They had children who kept getting hassled about > their last name. It seems that the school board decided that the > children couldn't use their father's last name because he didn't marry > their mother. Well, to try and make things easier for their children, > they finally got married. That was the end of a beautiful > relationship. The fights started and they basicly fell apart. > Why didn't the kids just use their mother's last name? Seems if you're going to defy one tradition, you may as well go whole hog. marie
simpson@lll-crg.ARPA (Rea Simpson) (07/07/85)
In article <485@oliveb.UUCP> rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) writes: >> >> Marriage is also a legal contract with rights and priviledges that are >> defined state by state. Marriage also carries a certain amount of social >> debris that a couple may not welcome. It may bear religious connotations >> to which the couple does not subscribe. >> >> Adrienne Regard > >Good point. I know of a couple who decided not to get married, but to >just live together. They had children who kept getting hassled about >their last name. ... they finally got married. That was the >end of a beautiful relationship. The fights started and they >basicly fell apart. > >The story has a happy ending, though. They got divorced. Then they >began living together. And they got along. > >Ok, the whole point to this story (and its a true one) is that some >people can be committed to each other without having to get married >and they know when they are better off. DON'T FORCE SOMETHING ON >SOMEONE THAT THEY FEEL IS NOT RIGHT. >-- > Robert A. Pease > {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap I've heard a lot of talk about how getting married can ruin things. I'm not sure I understand this (I have never been married). What's the big difference between being married and living together. I lived with a guy for 1.5 years and at some points I think it would have been easier if we had been married, although neither of us was ready for that. ____ " Let there be songs to fill the air ... " " Reach out your hand if your cup be empty If your cup is full may it be again " ____ Rea Simpson Lawrence Livermore Labs L-306 P.O. Box 808 Livermore, CA 94550 (415) 423-0910 {dual, gymble, sun, mordor}!lll-crg!simpson simpson@lll-crg.ARPA
rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (07/09/85)
> > > > Good point. I know of a couple who decided not to get married, but to > > just live together. They had children who kept getting hassled about > > their last name. It seems that the school board decided that the > > children couldn't use their father's last name because he didn't marry > > their mother. Well, to try and make things easier for their children, > > they finally got married. That was the end of a beautiful > > relationship. The fights started and they basicly fell apart. > > > > Why didn't the kids just use their mother's last name? Seems if you're > going to defy one tradition, you may as well go whole hog. > > marie Sigh, you missed the point. To repeat; >>Ok, the whole point to this story (and its a true one) is that some >>people can be committed to each other without having to get married >>and they know when they are better off. DON'T FORCE SOMETHING ON >>SOMEONE THAT THEY FEEL IS NOT RIGHT. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (07/11/85)
> > I've heard a lot of talk about how getting married can ruin things. I'm not > sure I understand this (I have never been married). What's the big difference > between being married and living together. I lived with a guy for 1.5 years > and at some points I think it would have been easier if we had been married, > although neither of us was ready for that. > > Rea Simpson I don't know why it happened, but when I got married something changed. We both noticed it and had a few minor arguments because of it. In our case, though, all it took was to recognise what was happening and make an extra effort to be more tollerent. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
grwalter@watnot.UUCP (Fred) (07/12/85)
In article <500@oliveb.UUCP> rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) writes: >> I've heard a lot of talk about how getting married can ruin things. I'm not >> sure I understand this (I have never been married). What's the big difference >> between being married and living together. I lived with a guy for 1.5 years >> and at some points I think it would have been easier if we had been married, >> although neither of us was ready for that. >> >> Rea Simpson > >I don't know why it happened, but when I got married something >changed. We both noticed it and had a few minor arguments because of >it. In our case, though, all it took was to recognise what was >happening and make an extra effort to be more tollerent. >-- > Robert A. Pease I don't see how a relationship could change for the worse just because you were married. Any such change would probably (to my way of thinking) have happened even if you didn't get married. I don't know your situation and so am curious as to what effect marriage had on your relationship (and on relationships in general - little things to watch out for when I finally find that special someone(s) whom I will marry). just curious fred UUCP : {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watnot!grwalter CSNET : grwalter%watnot@waterloo.csnet ARPA : grwalter%watnot%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/12/85)
>>I've heard a lot of talk about how getting married can ruin things. I'm not >>sure I understand this (I have never been married). What's the big difference >>between being married and living together. I lived with a guy for 1.5 years >>and at some points I think it would have been easier if we had been married, >>although neither of us was ready for that. [REA SIMPSON] > I don't know why it happened, but when I got married something > changed. We both noticed it and had a few minor arguments because of > it. In our case, though, all it took was to recognise what was > happening and make an extra effort to be more tollerent. [ROBERT A. PEASE] It seems that the worst thing that marriage does to two people is the way it makes them take each other for granted. As if, throughout "courtship", they were just playing up their good side, showing off their good points and hiding their flaws; but once the rings are exchanged, he's (she's) got her (him)! No longer does either one have to worry about "making a good impression" on the other one. Leave your clothes all over the place, don't bother paying any attention to your appearance, be a general slob and/or boor, don't bother putting up the front of consideration, etc. Not that this happens to all couples, but it seems to fit for those who ask "What happened to my marriage?" and then answer their own question with "It's all my spouse's fault!" Some people were brought up with very strange ideas of what marriage and relationships are supposed to be like, and these expectations may be bludgeoned away by the reality of being married to another person. Isn't divorce inevitable if they continue to try to force their expectations onto the other person? I can't help but think that the entertainment industry perpetuates such ridiculous notions about relationships. How many soaps/MTV videos/etc. have had, as their bottom line, problems in relationships that are all the *other* person's fault? Not just the cockeyed heavymetal videos that depict the woman who won't succumb to her boyfriend's wishes as the "problem" in a relationship, but those shows/videos that work in the reverse sense, too! It certainly isn't helping us get rid of these notions that have their roots in arcane traditions that offer simple roles and expectations for everyone to adhere to... -- Like a turban (HEY!), worn for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (07/17/85)
> I've heard a lot of talk about how getting married can ruin things. I'm not > sure I understand this (I have never been married). What's the big difference > between being married and living together. I lived with a guy for 1.5 years > and at some points I think it would have been easier if we had been married, > although neither of us was ready for that. > > Rea Simpson It seems to me that the subject line, "marriage = commitment", just about says it all. When a couple is only living together, their commitment to one another must in a sense be renewed daily. There is no implication of permanence in the arrangement. No specific problem need arise for a break to occur. Either party may simply weary of the situation, and decide to end it. With marriage, I believe a future commitment is made. It is not an *absolute* commitment to stick it out no matter what; that would not be realistic. Things change, people change, and there are no guarantees in this life. But, to me at least, marriage *does* mean a complete commitment to the relationship as it exists at the time of the marriage. In other words, each party is saying to the other, "there is nothing about you that I'm currently aware of which would ever cause me to leave you." I think some people take an opposite view of marriage, and for these people marriage can become the end of their relationship. They hope that the act of marriage will help resolve their difficulties, instead of resolving them before they make the commitment. Perhaps this works, sometimes, but when it doesn't work, the person finds they've made a lifetime commitment to an unsatisfactory mate. So they recognize their mistake, and call it quits. And marriage ends up destroying a relationship that worked reasonably well when they only lived together. Incidentally, I've lived with women both with contract (i.e. married) and without, and thoroughly approve of both. I don't mean to imply that lifelong commitment *can't* exist without formal marriage vows, only that it rarely does. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
simpson@lll-crg.ARPA (Rea Simpson) (07/17/85)
In article <1204@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>I've heard a lot of talk about how getting married can ruin things. I'm not >>>sure I understand this (I have never been married). What's the big difference >>>between being married and living together. I lived with a guy for 1.5 years >>>and at some points I think it would have been easier if we had been married, >>>although neither of us was ready for that. [REA SIMPSON] > >> I don't know why it happened, but when I got married something >> changed. We both noticed it and had a few minor arguments because of >> it. In our case, though, all it took was to recognise what was >> happening and make an extra effort to be more tollerent. [ROBERT A. PEASE] > >It seems that the worst thing that marriage does to two people is the way >it makes them take each other for granted. As if, throughout "courtship", >they were just playing up their good side, showing off their good points >and hiding their flaws; but once the rings are exchanged, he's (she's) got >her (him)! No longer does either one have to worry about "making a good >impression" on the other one. Leave your clothes all over the place, >don't bother paying any attention to your appearance, be a general slob >and/or boor, don't bother putting up the front of consideration, etc. >[RICH ROSEN] With the divorce rate the way it is I don't really think getting married means that you've "GOT" them, although I think the point Rich has made is a valid one. People do tend to show only their good sides at the beginning of a relationship. But don't they become lax (for lack of a better word) as the relationship continues whether or not the get married? ____ " ... and a friend or two I love at hand ..." ____ Rea Simpson Lawrence Livermore Labs L-306 P.O. Box 808 Livermore, CA 94550 (415) 423-0910 {dual, gymble, sun, mordor}!lll-crg!simpson simpson@lll-crg.ARPA
arnold@ucbingres.ARPA (Ken Arnold) (07/18/85)
> I've heard a lot of talk about how getting married can ruin things. I'm not > sure I understand this (I have never been married). What's the big difference > between being married and living together. I lived with a guy for 1.5 years > and at some points I think it would have been easier if we had been married, > although neither of us was ready for that. What often happens is that people have certain expectations about what a "wife" or "husband" is. These opinions are often held subconciously, but are still there. Thus, the person you live with has no defined role in this type of scheme, and so it is easier to define the relationship as befits the couple, but after marriage you suddenly have a "wife" or "husband", and they, by God!, have a role to play. The attidues are often formed by watching your parents relationships, plus those roles portrayed in the media to which you had access. I know several couples who had this problem, even up to seperation, and when they realized what was going on, they were able to work it out. One of the more common factors of these roles is that the other person is stuck with you, and so you start taking them more for granted. This often includes the idea that he is the head of the household, and she should give in to his wishes. Of course, these can exist in a non- marriage relationships, but often the actual assumption of the legal position brings these out with a vengence. Ken Arnold
adams@plx.UUCP (Robert Adams) (07/19/85)
(What is/was this discussion doing in net.philosophy?) >> I've heard a lot of talk about how getting married can ruin things. I'm not >> sure I understand this (I have never been married). What's the big difference >> between being married and living together. >> Rea Simpson > > It seems to me that the subject line, "marriage = commitment", > just about says it all. When a couple is only living together, their > commitment to one another must in a sense be renewed daily. There is > no implication of permanence in the arrangement. > ... > - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry My experience with "marriage ruining things" has not to do with the "commitment" involved but with the baggage that the culture adds to a marriage. When two are living together they are equal partners -- if both are working, they expect to keep working. Once married, though, there is the role of the stay at home house wife that is now a possibility. These things that "hang on" the roles associated with a marriage cause most of the tension that can destroy a relationship that was once "good" before the marriage. ..!{decvax,ucbvax}!sun!plx!adams -- Robert Adams
hammond@steinmetz.UUCP (Steve Hammond) (07/24/85)
> > My experience with "marriage ruining things" has not to do > with the "commitment" involved but with the baggage that the culture > adds to a marriage. When two are living together they are equal > partners -- if both are working, they expect to keep working. > Once married, though, there is the role of the stay at home > house wife that is now a possibility. These things that "hang on" > the roles associated with a marriage cause most of the tension > that can destroy a relationship that was once "good" before the > marriage. > > ..!{decvax,ucbvax}!sun!plx!adams -- Robert Adams Not being married... I cannot imagine the kind of "baggage" that Robert speaks of. I do know that there is no "baggage" clause in the marriage license or in the vows unless *you* put them there. Why can't a couple continue to both work and seek active careers just as before? The baggage is *your* own preconceived notion. Please don't try to pass off the tension as something that society puts on a marriage. If that was the entire story, this institution be in serious trouble today. (I just saw in this mornings paper that there were roughly 3 times as many marriages as divorces in NY during 1984. It can't be all that bad.) I just can't believe that the equal partners aspect has to dissolve once you tie the knot. I think that a "partners" concept adds all sorts of nice connotations to a marriage. -- Steve Hammond arpa: hammond@GE uucp: {...edison!}steinmetz!hammond
cff@uvaee.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara) (07/25/85)
In article <203@steinmetz.UUCP> hammond@steinmetz.UUCP (Steve Hammond) writes: > >Not being married... >I cannot imagine the kind of "baggage" that Robert speaks of. I do >know that there is no "baggage" clause in the marriage license or >in the vows unless *you* put them there. Why can't a couple continue >to both work and seek active careers just as before? But, who stays home to raise the kids? Somebody has to do it. Unfortunately, this means one partner must give up a career much too often. Children need parental attention and they can be deprived of this if both parents continue to work full time. If both partners want to pursue their careers full-time, they have some serious decisions to make if they want kids. -- Chuck Ferrara @ U. Va. Dept. of EE; Charlottesville,Va. 22901 UUCP: ...decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!uvaee!cff (804)924-7316
rance@cornell.UUCP (Rance Cleaveland) (07/26/85)
> > > > My experience with "marriage ruining things" has not to do > > with the "commitment" involved but with the baggage that the culture > > adds to a marriage. When two are living together they are equal > > partners -- if both are working, they expect to keep working. > > Once married, though, there is the role of the stay at home > > house wife that is now a possibility. These things that "hang on" > > the roles associated with a marriage cause most of the tension > > that can destroy a relationship that was once "good" before the > > marriage. > > > > ..!{decvax,ucbvax}!sun!plx!adams -- Robert Adams > > Not being married... > I cannot imagine the kind of "baggage" that Robert speaks of. I do > know that there is no "baggage" clause in the marriage license or > in the vows unless *you* put them there. Why can't a couple continue > to both work and seek active careers just as before? The baggage > is *your* own preconceived notion. But people exist in the context of their society, right? That's Mr. Adams' point, namely, that despite the best intentions of both parties involved a marriage can founder because of the cultural baggage (whose existence, alas, is only half-realized as people pursue "their" thing) both partners carry. The baggage is your own preconceived notion, but where do you think your preconceptions come from? Self-actualization (and assorted other modern hogwash) aside, we are creatures of our culture, and no matter what we want to believe it can be hard as hell to really free oneself (and I mean REALLY free, not just rhetorically free) from cultural conditioning.... Regards, Rance Cleaveland
ajmiller@ihu1m.UUCP (a. miller) (08/01/85)
> > > > > > My experience with "marriage ruining things" has not to do > > > with the "commitment" involved but with the baggage that the culture > > > adds to a marriage. When two are living together they are equal > > > partners -- if both are working, they expect to keep working. > > > Once married, though, there is the role of the stay at home > > > house wife that is now a possibility. These things that "hang on" > > > the roles associated with a marriage cause most of the tension > > > that can destroy a relationship that was once "good" before the > > > marriage. > > > > > > ..!{decvax,ucbvax}!sun!plx!adams -- Robert Adams > > Marriage from a christian's standpoint is an institution created by God. He commanded be fruitful and multiply. Taking this into consideration involves having children. For our species to survive children must be concieved. To have a good and moral society free from anarchy someone must raise the children. The christian beleives this is the wife's duties. With this in mind someone must take care of the children. And that means 24 hours a day. There is a responsiblity in being married. The most important is raising children. The idea of quality time does not exist. What children need is to be with their parents and the more time the better. If not the wife than the husband. This should be commited before and kept during the marriage. If the two cannot agree than they should not have children. I am glad that my mom and dad concieved and raised me so that I can enjoy life now and later. Andy Miller -- Andy Miller ix 0805 1G465
purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) (08/03/85)
In article <591@ihu1m.UUCP> ajmiller@ihu1m.UUCP (a. miller) writes: >> > > >> > > My experience with "marriage ruining things" has not to do >> > > with the "commitment" involved but with the baggage that the culture >> > > adds to a marriage. When two are living together they are equal >> > > partners -- if both are working, they expect to keep working. >> > > Once married, though, there is the role of the stay at home >> > > house wife that is now a possibility. These things that "hang on" >> > > the roles associated with a marriage cause most of the tension >> > > that can destroy a relationship that was once "good" before the >> > > marriage. >> > > >> > > ..!{decvax,ucbvax}!sun!plx!adams -- Robert Adams >> > >Marriage from a christian's standpoint is an institution created by God. >He commanded be fruitful and multiply. Taking this into consideration involves >having children. For our species to survive children must be concieved. >To have a good and moral society free from anarchy someone must raise the >children. The christian beleives this is the wife's duties. With this in >mind someone must take care of the children. And that means 24 hours a day. >There is a responsiblity in being married. The most important is raising >children. The idea of quality time does not exist. What children need is >to be with their parents and the more time the better. If not the wife >than the husband. This should be commited before and kept during the marriage. >If the two cannot agree than they should not have children. I am glad that >my mom and dad concieved and raised me so that I can enjoy life now and later. > > Andy Miller I can see that I've "n'd" over this discussion far too long. As to Robert's comments - I agree for the most part. But I honestly believe that there are people who just are not born or have not been raised to be able, or happy, to commit themselves to one person for a long period of time. I'm beginning to think quite seriously that I am one of them. I don't know if this is a sign of emotional immaturity or if it's just the way that some people are. I rather think (or at least hope) that it's the latter. I love people deeply, and become close to people, but I really suck at commitments. As to Andy - I've heard the claim before that it's not right for a Christian to marry unless they plan on having children. I'm not sure if that's what he's saying or not, but it is a view that I totally disagree with. I plan on never having a child (whether I marry or not) although I do want to adopt one someday (whether I'm married or not.) As to one person having to stay at home and take care of the child, I definitely disagree. I also disagree that there is no such thing as quality time. I know some wonderful parents who both work. I come from a single parent home. I went through a lot of tough times and spent a lot of time on the streets. But I enjoy life now, and I expect to enjoy later. Not to say that my childhood was one that I would wish on anyone, but you can't say that just these certain elements (one parent not working, spending a lot of time with the kids, etc.) makes a good parent, a good family, or a good child. cheers - elizabeth g. purtell (Lady Godiva)
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/05/85)
In article <1761@reed.UUCP> purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) writes: >>Marriage from a christian's standpoint is an institution created by God. >>He commanded be fruitful and multiply. Taking this into consideration >>involves having children. For our species to survive children must be >>conceived. To have a good and moral society free from anarchy >>someone must raise the children. The christian believes this is the >>wife's duties. With this in mind someone must take care of the children. >>And that means 24 hours a day. There is a responsiblity in being >>married. The most important is raising children. The idea of quality >>time does not exist. What children need is to be with their parents >>and the more time the better. If not the wife then the husband. >>This should be commited before and kept during the marriage. >>If the two cannot agree than they should not have children. I am glad that >>my mom and dad conceived and raised me so that I can enjoy life now >>and later. [Andy Miller] > As to Andy - I've heard the claim before that it's not right for a >Christian to marry unless they plan on having children. I'm not sure if >that's what he's saying or not, but it is a view that I totally disagree >with. I plan on never having a child (whether I marry or not) although I >do want to adopt one someday (whether I'm married or not.) As to one >person having to stay at home and take care of the child, I definitely >disagree. I also disagree that there is no such thing as quality time. I >know some wonderful parents who both work. I come from a single parent >home. I went through a lot of tough times and spent a lot of time on the >streets. But I enjoy life now, and I expect to enjoy later. Not to say >that my childhood was one that I would wish on anyone, but you can't say >that just these certain elements (one parent not working, spending a lot >of time with the kids, etc.) makes a good parent, a good family, or a >good child. Andy is incorrect when he attributes his position to Christianity in general, because a number of protestant churches explicitly disagree with this position. For instance, the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1958 identified many significances to sex besides procreation. Just reading Genesis, it is clear that the reason for marriage is companionship rather than procreation. Children do not in fact need absolute 24 hours a day supervision; when they are old enough, it indeed becomes burden upon them. I don't think it is clear yet whether or not latchkey kids are really so disadvantaged. I would suspect that with some parents, it is better for them than the other alternative. This flight from freedom and responsibility is always puzzling to me. We are supposed to be rational creatures, capable of reasoning out a situation rather than always having to follow some rule. Yet what I hear Andy saying is that this one role assignment is ALWAYS the correct one (with rather scanty justification from scripture too). Isn't it possible that responsible parents could look at their children and say, "It is time that we both returned to work; the children are old enough to deal with a few hours of being left to themselves"? It should also be obvious that the emotional wellbeing of the parents has a considerable impact upon the psychological health of the children. Parents do in fact need to get away from their kids once in a while. C Wingate "Are you sure you weren't adopted?"
speaker@gymble.UUCP (Speaker to Animals) (08/05/85)
In article <1761@reed.UUCP> purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) writes: >> Marriage from a christian's standpoint is an institution created by God. >> He commanded be fruitful and multiply. Taking this into consideration involves >> having children. For our species to survive children must be concieved. >> To have a good and moral society free from anarchy someone must raise the >> children. The christian beleives this is the wife's duties. With this in >> mind someone must take care of the children. And that means 24 hours a day. >> There is a responsiblity in being married. The most important is raising >> children. The idea of quality time does not exist. What children need is >> to be with their parents and the more time the better. If not the wife >> than the husband. This should be commited before and kept during the marriage. >> If the two cannot agree than they should not have children. I am glad that >> my mom and dad concieved and raised me so that I can enjoy life now and later. Not all Christians will agree with you that "the christian believes this is the wife's duties." Please think before you make sweeping statements about what your religion dictates about the family insitution... and about what other christitans feel their religion requires of them. Not every christian household saddles the wife with the menial tasks. From your above statement I gather that you believe it is the wife that is to do the day-to-day grundgy work, while the man comes home to provide leadership when the kids are fit to be seen. On a side-note you seem to disaprove of anarchy since you imply that arnarchy = chaos. This is not always the case, although it most often is the case in our world.
purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) (08/08/85)
In article <215@gymble.UUCP> speaker@gymble.UUCP (Speaker to Animals) writes: >In article <1761@reed.UUCP> purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) writes: NO SHE DOESN"T!!!!! >>> Marriage from a christian's standpoint is an institution created by God. >>> He commanded be fruitful and multiply. Taking this into consideration involves >>> having children. For our species to survive children must be concieved. >>> To have a good and moral society free from anarchy someone must raise the >>> children. The christian beleives this is the wife's duties. With this in >>> mind someone must take care of the children. And that means 24 hours a day. >>> There is a responsiblity in being married. The most important is raising >>> children. The idea of quality time does not exist. What children need is >>> to be with their parents and the more time the better. If not the wife >>> than the husband. This should be commited before and kept during the marriage. >>> If the two cannot agree than they should not have children. I am glad that >>> my mom and dad concieved and raised me so that I can enjoy life now and later. > >Not all Christians will agree with you that "the christian believes >this is the wife's duties." Please think before you make sweeping >statements about what your religion dictates about the family insitution... >and about what other christitans feel their religion requires of them. >Not every christian household saddles the wife with the menial tasks. From >your above statement I gather that you believe it is the wife that is to do the >day-to-day grundgy work, while the man comes home to provide leadership >when the kids are fit to be seen. > >On a side-note you seem to disaprove of anarchy since you imply that >arnarchy = chaos. This is not always the case, although it most often >is the case in our world. I did not write the above material. I followed up on it, but I certainly did not write it nor agree with it. I really don't need the entire net thinking that I think that taking care of the children 24 hours a day is the wife's duty. So let's get this clear - I did not write that. I do not agree with any of it. I certainly don't think that one should not have sex if one doesn't want to have children as a result, I don't think that the wife (or anyone else) needs to be home to take care of the kids 24 hours, and I never said anything about anarchy or chaos. I've got enough problems with people who disagree with what I really say, I don't need people sending me letters disagreeing with what I didn't say. cheers - elizabeth g. purtell (Lady Godiva)
speaker@gymble.UUCP (Speaker to Animals) (08/10/85)
[An unknown poster] >>> Marriage from a christian's standpoint is an institution created by God. >>> He commanded be fruitful and multiply. Taking this into consideration >>> involves having children.... [Lady Godiva writes] I did not write the above material. I followed up on it, but I certainly did not write it nor agree with it. I really don't need the entire net thinking that I think that taking care of the children 24 hours a day is the wife's duty. So let's get this clear - I did not write that. I do not agree with any of it. I certainly don't think that one should not have sex if one doesn't want to have children as a result, I don't think that the wife (or anyone else) needs to be home to take care of the kids 24 hours, and I never said anything about anarchy or chaos. I've got enough problems with people who disagree with what I really say, I don't need people sending me letters disagreeing with what I didn't say. [and....] I didn't say this!! I Followed up on it, and I disagreed with it. Please please PLEASE check who you're attributing something to before you post an article. [Speaker-To-Animals] Now now now... don't get excited. I said nothing of the sort about you, and nowhere in my article does your name even appear! Only the attribute line from your reply remained. Notice also that the person that wrote the original article apparently neglected to leave a "you write" line since it doesn't appear in either my article or Charley Wingate's (reference 1108@umcp-cs). How can I include an attribute line when there was none to begin with? So with no personal attack or explicite reference to you made I think you're jumping the gun a bit. I mean REALLY... just how many times do you need to repeat yourself? Once is quite enough and quite frankly I get a little irritated by people that feel the need to bludgen me over the head as if I didn't see what was two feet in front of my nose. Calm down and mellow out a bit.
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (08/12/85)
In article <591@ihu1m.UUCP> ajmiller@ihu1m.UUCP (a. miller) writes: >Marriage from a christian's standpoint is an institution created by God. ok >He commanded be fruitful and multiply. Looking at the world (over)population, I'd say that we have accomplished this. Perhaps we should now turn our attention to some of the other commandments, which we haven't done so well on. > ... someone must raise the children. The christian beleives >this is the wife's duties. The Christian Andy Miller believes this is the wife's duty. The Christian Dave Seifert believes this is the duty of BOTH parents. > The idea of quality time does not exist. The *idea* doesn't exist? huh? Quality time does exist. The problem is if you use high-quality time to justify low-quality time. > What children need is to be with their parents and the more time > the better. I suspect that you are refering to those who have kids, then put the kids in institutions while both parents work. I fail to see the point in having children only to stick them in some institution and continue with your career as usual. On the other hand, I'm not sure it *has* to be the parents that are with the child 24 hours a day. There is the time-honored tradition of Grand[mp]a-as-babysitter. Also Aunts and Uncles, older siblings, etc. And I'm sure that it is possible to find a *good* day care center. But again, if the parents aren't doing *most* of the raising of their kids, why did they have kids? To make Mom and Dad into Grandma and Grampa? To contribute to overpopulation? Because it's the 'in' thing to do? Bad reasons to have kids. Snoopy tektronix!hammer!seifert Whoops, oh, Lord, oh well I did it again. Now, I've got ten children of my own. I've got another child on the way, that makes eleven. But I'm in constant Heaven. I know it's all right in my mind. 'cause I got a little schoolgirl, an' she's all mine. -Page, Jones & Bonham
purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) (08/14/85)
it. > >[Speaker-To-Animals] > >Now now now... don't get excited. I said nothing of the sort about >you, and nowhere in my article does your name even appear! Only the >attribute line from your reply remained. >How can I include an attribute >line when there was none to begin with? All that is necessary for people to think that I posted something is for the attribution line to be there. And the correct attribution line was in the article when I followed up on it. When it says "Lady Godiva writes..." and then is followed by an article, I'd assume that people would think that I wrote it. >So with no personal attack or explicite reference to you made I think >you're jumping the gun a bit. >Once is quite enough and quite frankly >I get a little irritated by people that feel the need to bludgen me >over the head as if I didn't see what was two feet in front of my nose. How much more explicite do you want to get? As far as once being enough, I only posted one article about it. The only reason that I sent a reply to you is that I wasn't sure how frequently you read this newsgroup, and I just wanted to be sure that this was called to your attention. I never claimed that a personal attack was made on me, and if I had agreed, even slightly, with the article, I wouldn't have been upset at all, although I would have still posted a disclaimer. But, really, do you expect me to allow the possibility that people on the net would think that I thought that women should stay home and take care of the kids, etc.? calm and mellow - elizabeth g. purtell (Lady Godiva)