Should more countries in the world adopt this as law, like Norway did?

I don't know enough about it. It looks good, but I'd want to hear some reasons why a country might or might not want to adopt it.

I love Article 11, Section 2:
Article 11.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

I've always admired the forethought of that so much.

There are some good bits in there and some dubious parts. I could definitely do without the bowing to the UN.

The law doesn't sound like a bad idea (from what I've read - first four articles), but to each country their own. It's a nice ideal, and everyone should eventually strive towards it, but it still is an ideal. It would be ridiculous to force countries like Saudi Arabia, where as far as I know women are not allowed to drive or where if you get into a car crash with a Saudi it's your fault immidiately, to just switch to this. I am sure most places will eventually come around to something like, I am just saying that not all of them are ready yet. Also, just because a country adopts a law, does not necessarily mean it will be upheld.

Whereas is a stupid word.

Call me cynical, but this sort of thing seems pointless to me. When push comes to shove, these rules will be ignored. And, it's almost always like that.

I would say no.

Whereas the document asserts itself as a declaration of human rights, it is clear in article 8 that the only rights it actually recognizes are civil rights.

Toss in something about unmarried people getting the same privileges as married people, and I might be able to tolerate it.

Article 7 talks about about equal protection of the law. I'm sure that provision would be just as followed as the equal protection clause of the 14^th amendment is followed in the US.

Probably

I've seen this before. I ask you why should we even have a document such as this...of course people should be cordial. It is deeper than that. I believe in sovereignty of a country. I believe in borders of like kind. What does this document mean? It means the One World Order, the BEAST in the Bible.

Maybe this would help the heathen country that is mentioned on this site...http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=1...

There are some truly evil, barbaric people in this world.

> Maybe this would help the heathen country that
> is mentioned on this site...http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=1...
>
> There are some truly evil, barbaric people in
> this world.

Quoting WND doesn't help your credibility any, unless your goal was to have absolutely none.

I'm not a one worlder...it's deadly. I do not believe in a one world economic government.

Do you believe there should at the very least be basic universal laws that are enforceable worldwide? (Like: force countries to not allow violations of fundamental human rights - no torture, everyone gets free speech, etc)

> I'm not a one worlder...it's deadly. I do not
> believe in a one world economic government.

I just find it hillarious that you think the UN is actually even capable of taking over the world. Honestly, if an organization couldn't even force the tiny republic of Mauritania to make slavery illegal until 2007, it's not in control of the world.

The thought is nice...but there are some people in this world that will never change, and I don't want any of our young boy/girls to die in uncivilized nations trying to convert heathens. Ideally, each individual nation should be civil to their own, and others, but I don't think it's going to happen in my lifetime.

I think each individual nation should be an entity unto itself. Of course, it would be nice for each nation to treat their people with civility, become civilized.

Just skimming through, I'll say yes. There are probably things I'd contend or further push though.

That's a good point, not feeling obligating to enforce global standards in other nations.

In a sense, I don't think it's even our right. If a society wants to force it's women to abide by rules, that's their perogative.
On the other hand, back to the universal human rights aspect, I think other nations should grant asylum to such women, such that people at least have a choice about what sort of society they live in.

Hmm Not sure on this one. While it sounds good, it could be twisted by those with evil intent to remove rights from others (just look at what our politicians have done to us here in the U.S. with the Constitution). Also I didn't see the right to own guns and the right to protect yourself, property and family with deadly force.

Good thoughts Kristal Rose.

I don't feel we have an obligation to change other nations. Some are so entrenched with heathen thoughts, we'll never change them. But, it is our obligation to teach others about God's Word.

As far as women are concerned. I feel it is insane the way some cultures treat their women...it is ungodly. Women are to be cherished by their husbands, and males in their life. Likewise women are to respect their husbands, respect his role in the family...he is the headship. A smart woman would not try to usurp his role. The women liberation travesty did much harm to women, and the family...it was designed to do that...by ungodly men. Men and women are to love each other, not be in competition. Men and women have different roles in life, respect them.

Have you not read anything about the Womens Suffragette movement? All it's leaders like Alice Paul were rebellious women, mostly going against most of the men they knew.

The only time there was ever a conspiriatorial plot of any sort of Women's Lib, it was during WWII when we needed women in the work-force. Afterwards they tried putting women back in the home but the women wouldn't go for it. Besides, by that time we had instant foods, power blenders, money to buy things like clothes which were becoming cheaper to buy then make, so women weren't really finding anything to do at home anymore anyhow except play bridge or buy hats. We no longer lived on ranches so two kids were preferable to eight. Women's equality is simply the result of our conditions. You don't find it in backwards rural countries where a traditional woman's role still serves some necessary purpose. ..and as you noticed, without seeming to get, such societies are abusive towards women. Keeping a woman in the kitchen and raising kids is no different than making them wear black hoods in public. They are seen as utilitarian commodities, and musn't be allowed to have choices and rights, otherwise they'll do just what modern american women have done. The only way such societies have of maintaining such order is by never letting their women imagine they are in any way equal in the first place.

Kristal Rose,

I don't consider being a wife, loving mother and homemaker, slavery. They're being responsible. Women's Lib was a strategy of the enemy within. Sure being a mother and homemaker is a difficult job, but it's life. Man's job is difficult too, if he does it right.... husband, loving father, provider, headship, leader, It's supposed to be team work. I've done both, been a wife/mother/homemaker, and worked outside the home....working outside the home is easier.

I think being a woman, and mother is the most important role she could ever have. Unfortunately, a father's role in the family has been minimized...BIG MISTAKE. The role of a loving man/ father is imperative to a well balanced home. God, and The family is the rock of this country, Can't you see what has happened? Take the woman out of the home, or take the man out of the home....it falls, then the children are easy pickin's, easy to indoctrinate by the enemy within.

that would be really nice. but I doubt it would work here.

Who needs to be a homemaker today? There's vaccuumng and dishes to do which a working couple can easily share.

If you have kids, then I believe in the mother being home for at nearly a year, and one parent being home for the next three, and a parent home by the time the kids are home from school until they are ten.

I don't really see any difference in the gender roles. Either can read the kids books, sing and dance with them, do the dishes with them, teach them math, or build a first tree house with them.

Women may have a nature that appears more passive, but if you look at what a typical accomplishes, it's usually actually and ultimately in no way less outgoing than things men do. As society's options become more formaized, and less breaking the mold is required for survival, it would make more sense today for everyone to behave more as women traditionally behaved, and for women to have a touch more of how men behaved.

I have no idea what you are talking about homes falling prey to indoctrination. How is that going to be any different than if a child had two mothers or two fathers instead? I can see no one being at home with the kids to be a door to indoctrination, but that's not what we are discussing, and is more an issue of the work economy. One can have a mother and father and still see neither of them.

Not to take offense, as I see it as insignificantly meaningless anyhow, but if you mean that traditional masculine qualities need to be present in a home, you have twice as much of that as 75% of the men I know. So did my last girlfriend.

Any good balanced person in my book has nurtured the better qualities traditionally associated with both genders, and simply has virtues like fortitude and tenderness regardless of gender.

I resent the notion that anyone should think their gender gives them title to consider themselves leader in any regard. Any balanced couple makes mutual decisions. Policies for who puts their foot in where are up to the couple and not determined by gender, but by individuals natures, and what roles are comfortable for whom in a non-sacrificial way.

I think you have notions about gender which today are as sensible as asking us to live like Afganis or vice versa. Your notions work for the world Americans had a century ago, but that world no longer exists. It would be a disservice to our children today to attempt recreating the same thing today. Kids need the full gambit of developed virtues from both parents today, not one set from one and another from the other.

Maybe you watched too many movies as kid of princesses marrying the champion knight prince. They don't even bother to make such movies anymore. People prefer that even their fantasies have some degree of possible and desirable as a metaphor.

Those old ways were full of allusions of the womans autonomy dying in marriage while the men's lived on, with terms like 'the little death', or the formal titles Mr. and Mrs. John Smith.
The term Ms. was a step in the right direction. Prior to that women were labelelled as available conquests or not, Miss or Mrs, while the men all hid behind Mr.

You might think it was equal and complementary, but it was not. You couldn't have had any woman go get a job and demand that her husband stay home and watch the kids and have supper ready, or maybe fix some snacks while the other gals are over for the SuperBowl. You can't say it's because women are naturally better at making snacks and men are naturally better at watching Football. I know as many women as men who are avid sports fans, and as many men who are good cooks as women. I fail to see what your notion of gender roles accomplishes.

Kristal Rose, you have been indoctrinated...no offense.

Men and women are different, can we not agree?...They were created with different qualities, different bodies. And the obvious being one has an inny and one an outy. They need each other. There needs to be an egg, and a sperm...it won't change. The enemy within knows of the different qualities, trying to make everyone alike..better to enslave you, my dear. The family is a creation of God. There are roles also....the woman bears the children...let's see a man pull that one off.

Of course, both, in some circumstances, can share other responsibilities...working together is the name of the game. I say one breadwinner, if at all possible, the other only to supplement...better to help on a rainy day, stay out of debt.

I am the way I am because I've had to be. I raised two daughters, by my first marriage, on my own.. Just recently talked to ex husband, told him I have no resentment, and to please look after our two daughters if I pass. He apologized for the wrongs he did in our marriage...he told me this after seven years. He was never a husband or father...he admitted it. We had a good conversation. I married my present husband, thinking everything was going to be beautiful. I was young and naive. We've been married 48 years. He never took the headship role. He has never been the husband I wished for, a leader type, He's anti social, unfatherly, but he has always been faithful. He is a moral man. The only relationship we had was of sex, I never denied him.

I had to take charge. I've often said, I raised five children instead of the four I bore. Strong, leader type men, I adore, appeal to me. But, it will never happen for me. I must say, since my stroke, my husband has done more for me, then all the other years....with the exception of socialization. I thank him often.

So, you personally would have preferred a man to take charge. Some women would rather not have that, and are totally happy to be in charge, or for there to be no one as "leader". There's nothing wrong with that. There's no 'leader' in my family, and I like it that way.

Man should counsel with his wife, in matters that affect the family. If there is a difference of opinion, the man must use good judgement in leadership, make the final decision. And even if they agree, he makes the final judgement. Men today have been womanized. My husband cannot lead, or make decisions...I wish he could. He has always called me the brains of the house, while he's the brawn....it's a joke with him. While I think there is a health issue, it is no less a big headache for me. The woman I know is the head in the kitchen, the man should be the headship of the home.

I like being partners....yet have a strong man as headship

But what if the woman does have the brains? Can you see it, where a woman is very sensible and has very sound judgment, high intelligence, and is with a man who isn't very big on making decisions or problem solving? If the woman doesn't mind being the decision maker, this kind of relationship would be right for them.

Yes, this kind of relationship is right for my husband and men like him. I now know he has a health issue. I took care of the children, home, kitchen, financial matters, plus worked part time, three years full time...still had a full dinner on the table every night. He never turned a finger to help me...he says he feels a man should not put in anymore than his eight hour day job. He held true to his word. Years ago, an officer told me, my husband needs a woman like me, he is a dependent personality. I did not know this when I married him. My husband was an alcoholic, and came with some excess baggage…he wasn’t a nice alcoholic. I want to carry my weight in a relationship, give and take, share in responsibilities….but needed help, but never received it. This is why I am the way I am…I’m the leader, and resenting it. I want a man, not a boy. But, after 48 years together, I'm not going anywhere.

P.S. For this perhaps you can understand why I had the stroke, in poor health...stress. My husband is 80 years old, fit shape, he never worried about a thing. He said he did, but he ignored things. I love him for being the father to my two sons, being my husband for many years, but I wish things could have been different. In my next life, I'm going to be very careful....lol

I don't agree with the notion that men shouldn't put in any more than their 8 hour job. At the end of a school day, there is just too much happening for 1 person to do it all. Dinner, dishes, clearing the table, helping kids with homework, etc. The man should help when it gets too busy for 1 person.

Not one finger was lifted...that was woman's work in my husbands eyes. I am not exaggerating. He never took care of the children, while I went to the store, I took them with me. I took them everywhere. He said he'd never be a babysitter. I think back...I was overwhelmed. This is the way he tried to show his "manliness". by not doing anything for a woman. Now he helps me.

> Not one finger was lifted...that was woman's work
> in my husbands eyes. I am not exaggerating.
> He never took care of the children, while I went
> to the store, I took them with me. I took them
> everywhere. He said he'd never be a babysitter.

Where I grew up that's called being a lousy father. A good father is INVOLVED with his children. Your husband might just as well as not been there at all for all he contributed. He couldn't have been less there for his kids if he were just a number on a turkey baster.

Unfortunately, he saw the way his father was to his mother. Yes, you are right a good father is involved with his children. A father is so important to his children. He was involved with my sons, their sports, hunting and fishing, the recreational stuff, but that's where it ended. He actually felt that raising children was 100% a woman's job...a man plants the seed, and that's it. He felt that being good to a woman, showed a sign of weakness in a man...but it's quite the opposite.

I think most couples get by without the notion that anyone is in charge. The extent of it may be that people step in and take authority for something like budget or diet decisions, and their authority is accepted without question. One partner sees the sense of the others leadership in that respect, and doesn't want to take on the responsibilities tha go wih the position, like calculating the budget or studying diet.

What do you even mean by headship? Give me some concrete examples of what you would have wanted a husband to do which did not happen. I'm guessing your husband saw situations as not requiring decisions, but if you were going to step in and make decisions anyhow, that was not objectionable, and perhaps even useful.
I suspect the real issue in your marriage is not that your husband was a wimp, but that he saw no great need for the level of household discipline and direction that you saw a need to exist; and looking at the results of your combined life in terms of his goals, he was probably right.

If you had wanted someone to recreate the household you grew up in, you chose poorly; You made the mistake, as you often do, of presuming that your sense of how things should be is universal.

Sure, you could have found a man like what you sought, but instead of belittling the one you got as not living up to universal expectations, give him a break and come to the realization that your expectations are mostly just your own, and that he is doing just fine in accordance with the general range of what is out there.

Your set of expectations is even more problematic for you, because not only do you think things are supposed to be a certain way, you expect others to enforce those ways for you; when, as you've discovered, if you want things your own way you have to go out and make things your own way your self. You set yourself up from the get go to be dissapointed with your expectations, because you never opened your eyes and took a look at what society actually generally offers, and took what your parents taught you for granted instead.

..and now, instead of succumbing to disillusionment, you refuse to see it in the first place, which makes you consciously ignorant. You are not willing to let go of the notion that your sense of how things should be is a universal truth. ..Which is fine if you want that, but it's a tough life, and not one which will win you many friends, excepting those who share your views on what should be.

Other people, in contrast, have no problem at all in having close friends who have entirely different views. They know the world is different things and don't have to agree first on what one thing the world is. Metaphorically speaking, as regards culture and philosophy the world has to offer, you live in a gated cul-de-sac, and literally this sounds like it would be your preference as well.

"that was woman's work in my husbands eyes." Well unfortunately, as is often the sort of cosmic joke we get around here, you at least got the negative side of your desire for a man with a sense of gender roles.

I totally agree with Linda on a couples dynamics being based on what each party brings to the table. I am not a decisive person. I am intelligent and can see the repurcussions of any decisions, but I still can't project them far ahead enough to be comfortable making a decision which isn't absolutely informed. For this i need someone a bit more impetuous, willing to take a risk on any decision, and I can just advise them on the thus-far known pros and cons of the options. My nature is indecisive, and it wouldn't make sense to expect a decisive role of me just because I was born a particular gender.

Something like childbirth is definitely a woman thing, but most every other quality like decisiveness might come with either gender. You seem to expect that one gender has more of such things than another, and there's just no evidence for it. Sure, a society could adopt conventions to have straight simple rules set, such as that the man is always the family decider, but that doesn't change that with some couples the woman would actually be the better the candidate for such a role.

Let me see, how long do you want to read? You’re right I made wrong choices in husbands. I’m good for him, so I’m told, but he wasn’t right for me. My husband has difficulty in making decisions, but I know this can be a health issue. He told me recently, he was lucky to have me. He’s told my son, you need a wife like your mom. What he’s saying in essence, marry a mother. My husband is a weak man…I know it. He is basically a honest man, this is a comfort to me. He jokingly tells me, I'm the brains, he's the brawn. But, simply speaking, I’ve been his sex partner, his cook, bookkeeper, housekeeper, laundress, worker, mother of his children, and mother to him.

You need specifics….He wouldn’t help me with the bills…one day I said “let’s sit down I want you to help me work out the budget, bill paying”. After 10 minutes, I gave up, I took completely over. I always took care of the income tax too.

Another example, I asked him to fix a leak in the hall bathroom. He never did. I had to take charge. I had to ask someone in to look at the leak, there was a lot of damage to the bathroom. So I changed the whole bathroom, put a skylight in, bigger bathroom window, glass doors, new floor…the works. The leak was so bad, dry rot through the main beam of the bathroom. All of this didn’t have to happen, if he’d taken charge and took care of the leak years before. I had to buy everything in the bathroom, he didn’t lift a finger. I bought the mirror, bathtub, glass doors, toilet, faucet, lights, skylight, window, cultured marble walls, floor material, sink…every single item. He now tells everyone he loves the bathroom.

When we bought our house, I wanted one other model, which was a little bigger, he said no we can’t afford it…it was like $1000 more. I said we’ll need more room with four children. He said okay we’ll build another room. Four years later, I called my dad, and got the ball rolling. My husband did nothing to start it. We were able to get his cousin to put in a window. Between my husband, dad and a couple guys, we had a nice family room built 16’ x 22’. Finally put in a free standing stove 20 years later…he did do a good job with the brick work. I insisted on the stove, to keep the room warm.

A few years later, I kept insisting on putting a skylight in the dining area because it was dark because of the new room addition. We had to keep the light on during the day. He wasn’t interested.. One day I asked my niece and my brother in law over, told them what I wanted. We marked off a 4’x6’ hole in the kitchen/dining room. They started sawing the ceiling, had it half sawed, and my husband walked in…wasn’t really super mad. We finished the sawing. Big hole in the ceiling. They offered to come back and finish the skylight. My husband said he’d take care of it. He did…took a while, but he did it. He said it was a good idea….loves the skylight.

My refrigerator stood out in the room. I asked him if we could saw a hole in the wall and put the refrigerator into the garage to save room in the kitchen. He said ok. We now have the refrigerator inserted into the wall. He did a good job. He said he loves it.

I guess I was raised by a father that could do anything. If he saw something that needed to be done, he did it. Evidently, I’m the same way. My husband said it’s difficult being married to a machinists daughter. My dad did things RIGHT. My husband was raised by a father that NEVER did anything around a home, or to a home. He told me his dad told him not to waste his time doing things around the home. He held true to his word. I get so aggravated. I say if you don’t know how to do something, try to learn. He won’t try to learn, or ask. For instance, in redoing my bathroom about 15 years ago, he bought some material that was not suitable for water, or a bathroom. I told him so, he did it anyway. He completed the bathroom…it appeared okay. Well, there’s been another leak in this bathroom also, been there for years. One week after my stroke, he decided to redo my bathroom. This time he put in beautiful porcelain tiles. Then he started putting the frame, glass side, and door back together. The frame didn’t seem right. I let him alone, didn’t say a word. I heard him complaining. He asked me a question. I told him it was out of line. The whole frame. Before this he had taken it up and down three times. It ended up, I found he had sawed off the bottom frame about a 1-½ inch on both sides when he did the bathroom 15 years before. I told him it has to be corrected. He made two pieces, and fit them in good, and caulked. The whole shower stall is not like the original, but it’s functional. He did a great job with the floor, and painted my favorite Martha Stewart color. He did good placing the toilet. I told him he did a good job, when he did a good job.

I just want him to take initiative, make decisions, be supportive. He doesn’t. I know these may seem trivial to you, but with all things, I had too much on my plate, I was overwhelmed. We had no communication whatsoever. We only had one thing…behind the bedroom door.

I felt I was alone when raising the children. The above things were somewhat minor things, the bigger things were regarding the children. I’ve been married 48 years. We get along, I’ve accepted my life. I rarely request anything of him. We laugh. I put on a front…he thinks everything is good. He never took the time to see if things were good.

I think in our marriage it's a culmination of things, the thing that was hardest for me was regarding the children. He told me he didn't know how to handle certain things...I told him no one knows, but people have to try. He didn't participate, except when it came to recreation.

Now my husband and I are as roommates, both get along, and the kids are all happy we're together.....for this, it's all been worth it.

Ok, he's not just easy going, which is rather common, but lazy and relies on a work-horse wife. Not too cool, but not incredibly rare either. Happens much less in this age though.

Sounds like your issue is ambitiousness vs. laziness. One doesn't have to be 'in charge' to do things like remodel a bathrooom. Your problem is that he doesn't do anything, doesn't even take charge of himself, and thus forces you to take charge to motivate him. Neither of you should have to do that.

I suppose he doesn't want to consider if things (such as between the two of you) are good or not, because he knows he's not going to put in effort to change them anyhow, so why become consciously discontent on top of it all? For him, with his expectations, it probably is good, at least as good as he's willing to work for.

You have an issue, to be sure, but it's not what I'd call a 'headship' issue. It's more like you have the expectations of a machinist's daughter. Had you come to terms with that 30 years ago, you could instead have had fun with your independence in house remodeling and not have been feeling slighted because your husband wasn't born on the house remodeling planet.

I think most everyone has issues in relationships just like that. Half of their stuff is in common, and half doesn't mesh; and if it does, it's because they've learned to operate complementarily, and aren't expecting to tackle everything in unison.

For what it's worth, the sort of husband you got is one of the main things that women's lib you are against sought to end. They would have seen your compliance as perpetuating the work-wife model, which, if this is the advice he's offering your son, has indeed happened.

Tell your son he'll be happier in a relationship where both parties cheerfully pull their own weight without expectations of each other. Better to appreciate what you didn't expect than moan over the absence of what was never yours in the first place.

Well with my kids my indecisiveness wasn't a problem, as it's the flip side of wisdom. I was obligated to pass on everything I'd figured out so far, not as what to do, but at least as a background for them to make their own decisions being better informed of the likely consequences.

Halfway between indecisive and wisdom is clarity, which translates to decisiveness. It's rare, but comes to me when I know I'm seeing appropriately far ahead enough without getting distracted in much less likely future outcomes. One kind of has to put their foot down on the odds to do that, and not feel obligated to be responsively stirred by the slightest winds which may come up later, trusting that I could handle such unknowns without having to prepare for every contigency ahead of time. The indecisiveness is the result of desiring to be in absolute secure control of what comes up, but not usually being a prophet. If I hadn't tasted being a prophet, I might not have ever had expectations of predicting such a secure path in the first place, and might more readily just do things without informed preparation.

My sons are nothing like their father, they've taken after me in many ways. They're handy around the home, involved fathers, very helpful around the house. Both political like me. Both are good men, gentlemen. But, they just don't look like me. They both look like their dad, but neither have our coloring. Both my husband and I have brown hair, brown eyes., both sons are blond and blue eyed. My husband teases me, if they didn't look so much like him, he'd think they were the mailman's.

I agree in part with some of what you said. You can't change anyone. I never went into marriage thinking he was going to change, ...I just didn't know. The key is knowing someone well. Look at their family. No one ever told me.

My husband was never taught. He's very good at masonry, and never wants to learn anything else. But, when he does a good job, I let him know. He and I are just different. I've now accepted it. I know a relationship is not going to be perfect all the time, but there has to be communication. My advice to anyone contemplating marriage...KNOW THE PERSON, and THEIR FAMILY Know what you want and don't settle for anything less.

He is basically is a good person, but there's too much water under the bridge. What hurts the most is never being able to be IN love again. My husband and I since my stroke, get along very well. But spend most of the day and night in separate rooms.

Know before you marry is definitely sensible. I doubt many people don't do that first these days.

I believe or hope to believe that many people today, will be wiser in choosing their life mate. I talk to my grandchildren about this subject. I saw the mistakes too late.

Since the 70's (at least on the coast) people only marry quick if they are rash and romantically minded. People usually live with each other a couple of years first. There's no pressure to marry any more. It's importance is merely personal, not social now.

wow.....I think this reply was actually meant for me....thank you

They have proven, through research, people living together before marriage, have less chances of a successful marriage. I understand why.

More accurately, a single study found a correlation between living together before marriage and length of marriage. I don't believe any causal link has been demonstrated.

I've also heard reported what Kristal Rose says, that young people today feel much less pressure to marry and marriage rates are way down. Whether for good or ill, I'm undecided my opinion on the matter, that change appears to be reality.

I only repeated what I had heard, about the research. I look at it this way, if people are serious, they'll get married.

You repeated what you'd heard but didn't bother to think about it because it appeared to supported a position you liked. Lack of thought is nothing to be proud of.

People are dismally ignorant of basic science, math, and logic. It makes them easier to manipulate, I suppose. The mistake you made, confusing correlation with causation, is dishearteningly common.

As for people being serious, you may look at it however you wish. You are free to be wrong. Serious people may choose differently than you for reasons you refuse to even consider. From what you write here, your worldview is extremely narrow and you take pains to keep it that way.

Dab, Dab, Dab....I believe the research. If someone is serious about loving someone, they'll take the step. Of course, it's important to be certain you're marrying the right person, but living with them before, tells you nothing...everyone will be on good behavior.

I can see secular teaching....

You wanted someone to run your life your way? (seems hard to believe) ..or just the part about expectations applied? ..or just this is the kind of guy you ended up with, and made the mistake of expecting some change?

You do. I would have expected exactly the opposite. That they would know what they are getting into and make better decisions. If the living-together test failed, you wouldn't even think they'd get married.

I think I know the actual explanation though, which isn't one of better marriages, just longer ones; and that is that the people who don't believe in living together first are also the ones who don't believe people should get divorced.

Also the ones who don't try out living together first having nothing else to compare their marriage to, thus again are less likely to know something better is likely elsewhere, and would just stay put.

How one defines succesful is the real question. I expect the study used objective marriage durability, not subjective happiness as it's criteria of success.

I would think that amongst those who lived together first, that if they were married, their marriage was amongst the happiest. For more traditional types, like yourself, they would stick out a marriage whether they were happy in it or not.

While their is something to be said for the love-learning experiences which may come from making things work out together just because you are stuck with each other, I still think marriage as a choice indicative of love and choice is a better plan.

Believing research is fine but you've already admitted that you just repeated what someone had told you about a particular bit of research without understanding. The study you mention showed a correlation. Period. Anything else you add is interpretation, opinion, and extrapolation.

Yes, secular teaching; the kind that uses evidence, logic, and math rather than blind belief and wishful thinking. I recommend to everyone that they avoid buildings and bridges designed by faith-based engineering.

Bottom line, marriage isn't something someone should jump into lightly. I don't believe living together before, will help longevity. People should date, counsel, learn to know each other, know the families of the partner. I think having God as the focus of the relationship is imperative.

Marriage is a sacred union..that's a fact. When people have to resort to 'living together' before marriage, it means they haven't a strong bond. Marriage is about love, respect, longevity. Ask yourself, why some marriages work, and others don't? Why some last for decades? They respect each other and what marriage is, a bond, a bond that God sanctioned.

yesx3

> Marriage is a sacred union..that's a fact.

No, that's an opinion. A fact is anything that has actually happened before this moment in time. Everything else is opinion, conjecture or theory.

Marriage is spoken of in the Bible. There is a family merely by the fact, a man and woman mate...have an offspring....a family has been produced. God said man and woman shall depart only upon death. There are several scriptures pointing to marriage and family.

Of course, modern man/woman, have made up their own rules....most the time to end up hurting others....careless, irresponsible.

> Marriage is a sacred union..that's a fact.

That's opinion, not fact.

> When people have to resort
> to 'living together' before marriage, it means they haven't a strong
> bond.

"Have to"? When people choose to live together before marriage, it might mean that haven't a strong bond. It might also mean a lot of other things. As I said earlier, you have an extremely narrow world-view which means you miss a lot. People have a lot of different reasons for doing things that are vastly outside your experience. Here are two quick examples, related to this topic. Some people who love each other and have that very strong bond are prohibited by law from marrying. A few states have rectified that error now but that's a very recent change. And I know people who live together without marrying exactly because they have friends who are prohibited by law from marrying and they won't marry until all are allowed.

What kind of laws are you talking about? Underage people? Why don't these people just wait until they marry before living together? Lack of discipline?

What is wrong with living together? Wouldn't it make sense to share a house first, so you know exactly what living with this person will be like?

I would bet that if everyone had the sympathies regarding divorce, that those who lived together first would have more durable marriages as well.

There is some 'best behavior' aspect of not taking things for granted, but if you live as married for two years first, that's unlikely to change afterwards.

But yeah, we agree on learning the family first and all that.

That's funny. You kind of proved his point, by gay couples not even occurring to you.

Current photo? You've lost weight and look much healthier.

This is where faith comes in. One never really knows someone, unless under the right setting. The setting of length of time, under most circumstances, and even then we learn through life experiences. When people live with each other without the blessings of marriage, unconsciously they'll be on their best behavior, really haven't their heart into it. There is no responsibility, or lack of it. In marriage there should be responsibility, a Godly responsibility. We put the other person before ourselves. Just the mere living together is irresponsibility.

Let's face it, in a marriage you have to have a will for it to survive, and hopefully it will pay off in the end. This is why it is important for a lengthy engagement, of no longer than a year. You should know them after a year, and if you're still uncertain, they're not for you. I knew a couple that knew each other six days, married at 17 and 18, and are still married.....they love and respect each other, and have faith. Their daughter married in her freshman year to a senior, they are still married. Why do you think that is? Last night they talked of Paul Harvey, he and his wife were married 70 years, they were partners. After she died, he died a short time later...they had a bond. I know of a couple I went to school with, they dated throughout high school. Upon graduation, they married, are still married...they did not live together. None of these people 'lived together before marriage'. The heart, respect and faith were responsible.

There are gay couples, and then there are people who are married. No matter how you want to change that, it can't be changed. Two people of the same sex, is a relationship, NOT a marriage.

I don't think it makes a difference whether you live together or not. You are on your best behavior when you are engaged just as much as when you live together. I see no difference.

I lived with my husband before we were married, and we are still married. 14 years.

Congratulations on your marriage. I wish you a lifetime of happiness.

The Bible is clear, no fornication before marriage. When we live with a man we love, there is more than likely fornication. There is something to be said about discipline. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, especially in the flesh. I'm not making judgments, because I wasn't pure/chaste when I married. Because I wasn't chaste, I entered into a marriage that was not good. When I was young, the word sex was not mentioned...it should have been because of curiosity, and hormones. Girls are trusting.. But, the job should be done by parents and/or church, NOT government schools. The parents and churches should be teaching their young about the instincts of the flesh, and not falling prey to fleshly desires...which can lead to a lifetime of pain.....a father's(mother's) sins shall visit ten generations.

"More than likely" fornication... and what about the couples who don't?

Not that it matters to non-believers anyway

> Congratulations on your marriage. I wish you a lifetime of happiness.
>
>
> The Bible is clear, no fornication before marriage.

Where exactly does it say this? Perhaps the New testament, as I'm far more familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures than I am with the New Testament, though I have read both. Hmm...perhaps one of Paul's epistles...? That kind of sounds like Paul.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the prohibition against adultery applied more to married women than anyone else, at least in an explicit sense. There was no explicit prohibition of prostitution, for example or any premarital sex. These attitudes carried over into Christianity for a long time as well. In the middle ages, for example, it was not unusual for a traveling priest or friar to marry a rural couple who had been together a long time, with the couple's adolescent children standing as witnesses.

There you go. You encourage people to marry instead of living together and in your next breath say how certain people aren't allowed to marry.

I suppose I don't really see the distinction between a relationship and a marriage except that a marriage is amongst the most significant of relationships. There is no component of the marriage I had which I couldn't see gay couples having as well. ..aside from the legal status currently, and legal status has no meaning for me outside the realm of law.

I can't imagine that a marriage partner has any more holy significance than a sibling or best friend. Marriage has that 'cherish' thing going perhaps, but one can cherish anyone.

People that are married, hopefully have a good relationship. But, marriage is between a man and a woman...no other. One of God's children cannot be born, come into being, born of flesh, without the egg of a woman, and a seed of the man, it's very simple, God designed it that way.. No two men, and no two women can produce one of God's children.

Well, I can't argue with you there if that's all you're saying. You're basically defining marriage as parenting partners. By that definition there would have to be one of each.

Those complaining about gay marriage obviously define it as something else though, since there's no point in making illegal something which can't exist anyhow.

> People that are married, hopefully have a good
> relationship. But, marriage is between a man
> and a woman...no other. One of God's children
> cannot be born, come into being, born of flesh,
> without the egg of a woman, and a seed of the
> man, it's very simple, God designed it that way..
> No two men, and no two women can produce one
> of God's children.

So, does this mean people who can't produce children should never get married? How about post-menopausal women who found love late in life? Are they screwed too?

That one is from 2004
I am a blonde now

Oh.

I haven't tried color since I was a red a decade ago.

Nope, mostly platonic.

It's quite a change from my pale skinned black haired goth days. I'm blonde and tan and look almost alive now

My daughter near you did a similar change, sun and weight loss.

Me, haven't felt the sun in awhile.

Your sunshine eminates outward

Not quite as much perhaps. Even in online gaming these past couple of weeks I manage to do accidentally do things which leave my character halos of sorts though, or at least beer bubbles.

No more beer bubbles for me....7 days sober! YES!

I only drink virtually. I have a huge liquor (potions) cabinet, but only drink at parties and haven't thrown any of those in years.

20 years ago my walls were covered with collected cans and bottles, and I brewed things like chocolate raspberry doppelbocks, but I kind of lost my taste for it, as with ham/bacon as well. I've been trying to kick tobacco since two years after I started though long ago, and haven't had much luck on that one.

Everyones different. I've met people who, once drinking, don't stop till they've passed out smelling gasoline. For the most part though I think AA is wrong; that it's better to redefine yourself as someone who prefers to rarely drink than as a lifetime alcoholic avoiding one's destructive temptation.

Awareness is key. When I'm alone there's no advantage to loosening up. It's not like I'm sharing jokes. Rather all I'm getting is the impairment interfering with my plans. With red meat, instead of keying into the sweet saltiness, I key into the sickening fattiness. Active evaluation without habituated tastes.

I'm very lucky. I can just stop. I have become aware that I drink when lonely or bored to escape having to FEEL. Now I'm making myself FEEL everything and be ok with all emotions. The soon to be ex husband voicemailed me yesterday. I felt the need to drink a bit after hearing his voice. I didn't return his call. I just let myself FEEL bad and didn't drink it away.

That makes sense. I've never thought of avoiding feeling and there's always too much to dream up to ever get bored.

If anything I alter consciousness chemically to increase how much I feel.

That makes sense
feelings amplified

..or at least not obscured by as much thinking. I slow down to pay atention to my surroundings instead of living in a drawing board in my head.