Hi Rip,
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I am pron, therefore I do not view pron. Also, I'd be divorced 4 times by now had I not lived with 4 prior girlfriends before finding the one that I was compatible with...thank God (excuse the pun) for modern day relationships not based on a best seller.
You'll have to forgive me, I've been away from the OC for a while, and I forgot to reinstall my worldview filter. Takes me a little while to reboot the
"now how would I have responded to what I just wrote when I was 22?" system.
I don't want to hijack the thread, as Momus pointed out Cav didn't ask for the advice I gave, so I'll leave it at few off the cuff responses and let you have the last word if you if you want it. if you want to discuss marriage vs. living together in a separate thread, I'd be willing to try to give that some attention.
Anywho, discussing the merits of abstinence prior to monogamous marriage for life in modern day American society is kind of like the problems the guys I know have discussing peace and stable government with Afghans. None of the Afghans have grown up around either, so all they know is war and various levels of anarchy. So they seriously doubt whether either are possible or even desirable. When Americans speak of their own experiences of both peace and stable government, Afghans tend not to be able to believe them.
So with that caveat Ripsnort, a few points from the other side. From a biblical or even 19th century point of view, you
were actually married four times (the old term was "common law marriage") prior to your current legally recognized marriage. You enjoyed most of what were once considered the benefits of marriage without the legally binding commitments or the long-term responsibilities.
Also, regardless of your personal experience, statistically speaking, people who live together prior to marriage are more likely to divorce than those who do not. Admittedly part of this is due to the fact that those who tend not to believe in living together, also tend to be against divorce as well but that isn't the only explanation. Just in terms of happiness and stability the evidence is that our forefathers were far better at marriage and staying together than we are today.
From my experience, I've seen the very real difference in marriages that involved prior cohabitation and those that didn't and I can tell you which are stronger. The strongest marriages tend to be those in which both husband and wife have a marriage based on a shared real faith (rather than a nominal profession), and a committment to dying to self, love and serve one another (even when the other person was not inherently lovable or respectable), and working out problems rather than simply pulling the plug. No other factors economic or social were as important as those. I find on the other hand that if the marriage was based on shopping around, inevitably people get tired of the current model and look for an ugrade.
For women in particular, living together has long-term detrimental consequences. For better or for worse they are made for lifetime commitments (and yes, we all know women who have been trained to want something else) and a string of broken relationships leaves them with damage you just don't see in men. It tends to warp kids, who need commitment stability every bit as much as their mothers if not more so. It's not a surprise to me that most criminals these days come from homes without fathers.
And yes, as you pointed out in the bestseller comment, its just wrong and unbiblical and not a use of the product that is in keeping with the maker's instruction manual.
- SEAGOON
