Now here's a real threat to the sanctity of marriage: Virtual infidelity.
An English couple are divorcing after she found him cuddling on a virtual couch with a cyber-lover on the computer. It wasn't the first time: She'd already busted him with a cyber-prostitute.
Makes me long for the good old days, when plain, old-fashioned, real-life adultery was the big threat to marriage. Not to mention all those gay people with their quaint notions of equality.
Heh. Keep fanning those flames Russ.
Is this where I question the journalistic integrity of the local newspaper because I don't understand the difference between a blog post and an actual news article?
MOI is gobsmacked!!!!!
Russ is way out of line.
Best way to deal with a chap like Russ is not to read his blog. MOI will not post here.
Adam, how horrid this blog post is.
marriage stinks. anyone that does it, regrets it later. except gay people of course.
"Not to mention all those gay people with their quaint notions of equality." (by Russ Minick)
Mr. Minick! What were you thinking when you wrote that?
This stuff happens quite frequently actually. People ghet so obsessed with attention from others on the computer and it ruins their lives. Some people cant understand reality.
The sanctity of marriage: Virtual infidelity.
What!
Whoever said that the female had the moral upper hand in infidelity?
That is Sooooooooooo........ old! Get real America, i.e. "Liberated" women are still taking avantage of the ancient/ old morality, of the "pure" woman!!
Unfortunately, men are still accepting that BS from the radical feminists, who use the tome that "all men are BAD"
Men ! Stand up for your rights!!!
Remember what Jay Leno said: "The economy is so bad that the former Governor of New York, Elliot S. is having sex with his wife!!"
Look up the defintion of "misandry". How often have you heard that word in the press?
Being a student of the blog...Russ' last line(I believe) was made with tongue in cheek.
Dang Jim - your jump from a comment about a divorcing couple to one of misandry is quite a leap! Sound like you've got a bit of misogyny going on yourself. What is O.K. in some marriages is not O.K. in others. Without knowing the dynamic of this particular marriage, no one has enough information to make any judgments. Nor is it anybodies business.
Why would anyone even write this blog... Russ?
Brian - I am sure Russ' last line was tongue in cheek. So what? Just because something was meant to be funny doesn't mean it is. I doesn't mean it is not mean spirited. Your humor can get that way as well and you think it is O.K. as long as you are not the brunt of the joke.
My concern from this any many of the other blogs is why heterosexuals have such a preoccupation with what other people are doing in their bedrooms.
Supporters of Prop 8, who want to preserve God's design of marriage as the law of the land in our society, are not dictating anything about what others do under the sheets. Obviously, many in society are doing whatever they want under the sheets, whether they are married or not. One has nothing to do with the other in today's world.
The side trying to shove their values down our throats are homosexuals, and confused people who support them like Kim.
What Christians don't want is our children indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle/marriage in the public schools, and we don't want homosexuals dictating what we do in our churches, which they will do if same-sex marriage is ever legalized again. They will sue if churches do not provide marriage services to them. They will also sue any wedding service business that chooses not cater to them. Soon they will sue churches who won't hire them on as staff. The homosexual rights groups are savvy and chomping at the bit to use the legal system to force their values on the rest of society.
All this is true, and I encourage anyone who does not believe it to find credible sources, which will verify it.
Kim...As long as it's kept in the bedroom and doesn't involve kids tell me why I should be concerned.I don't think Russ was making fun of homosexuals but those that don't want the "quaint" notion of marriage/equality for homosexuals.Russ is a big boy...he can speak for himself and this is just my take on his blog.
How bad are all these Christian parents that think their children are so weak as to be easily "indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle"?
Where's the faith in your convictions? Instead, you'd rather the government take care of your inability to properly prepare your children for the world as you see fit.
Fair enough Brian.
Repeach - this blog is about virtual infidelity. We are all aware of your stance on Prop 8 and the fact that you dislike me and my evil position. Brian clarified my misunderstanding of Russ' comment so I retract my "under the sheets" comment. Please no more Prop 8 rhetoric.
In some marriages virtual infidelity is a threat because some do blur the line between what is virtual and real. Others use virtual as a stepping stone to real. The spouse of any male or female that is intimidated by virtual infidelity or feel it is wrong, should not partake in it. It's part of the give and take of a marriage. Hopefully, the marriage is put before virtual fun.
Kim
It was not I, but Russ who brought Prop 8 into this blog with his original comment: "Not to mention all those gay people with their quaint notions of equality."
And for the record, I do not dislike you personally. I do however strongly disagree with how you warp the truth of the Gospels of Christ.
Please Kim, no more bending the eternal truths of our doctrine to suit your personal preferences.
Redpeach - You need to read more carefully. I have never bent the truths of Christian doctrine. I listed them remember? Reread all of my posts. I merely do not wish to force others to live by my beliefs. It is not my place to do so. The trouble lies with you developing pre-concieved notions before you read posts. It clouds what is really said. Please redpeach, no more bending peoples words to fit your misconceptions.
Redpeach,
You write, “The homosexual rights groups are savvy and chomping at the bit to use the legal system to force their values on the rest of society.”
You have it wrong (again). Wasn’t it the religious right that used the legal system to force their values on the rest of society? The right decries the intrusion of government into their lives, yet it uses the government to intrude into the lives of those they disagree with.
By the way Russ, keep it coming.
Adam writes, “How bad are all these Christian parents that think their children are so weak as to be easily "indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle?”
Adam, it’s not bad parenting; it’s the liberal’s fault. Just look how easy it was for the elite-liberal-Hollywood-mainstream media-leftist to indoctrinate Gov. Palen’s daughter into the immoral liberal lifestyle and commit the sins of premarital sex and teenage drinking. Damn liberals, they’re controlling the hearts and minds of conservative’s children.
You are so right Wayne. You forgot to add that Palin and McCain both said she had made the right CHOICE. Aw.. to have a CHOICE, what a concept.
That said, I guess just anything goes. No rules, no laws, no norms, just social chaos. After all, you wouldn't want to stick by any principle, for fear someone might be offended. They might accuse you of trying to force your beliefs down their throats.
Sorry, the relativism you subscribe to is a farce, and is largely responsible for the moral decay in our society since the 1060's. Liberalism is the most gutless philosophy around.
Redpeach, you are a bitter fruit. I don’t remember reading about the 1060’s in regards to our nation’s history, but I do know you’re the one trying to force your bigoted beliefs.
Redpeach, if you stopped flailing about so much and trying to build strawmen arguments, you might be able to have better discourse.
Rather, you'd like to misrepresent your opponent so you can make absurd generalizations. You keep driving your religious fundamentalism and you'll get what you want, but it won't be pretty and lots of people will get trampled in the process.
Keep your religion at home.
Matthew 6:1-6
Re: "adam"
AMEN!
and "...God shall let me see my desire upon mine enemies. Slay them not, lest my people forget: scatter them by thy power; and bring them down, O Lord our shield. for the sin of their mouth and the words of their lips let them even be taken in their pride: and for cursing and lying which they speak...Psalm 59:10;11;12 "...for they are confounded, for they are brought onto shame, that seek my hurt." Psalm 71:24.
Even the non-Bible thumpers have, and read the Bible, and without rancor contemplate its message.
Indeed, Ms. Lawson. And it's not uncommon for the "non-Bible thumpers" to be more familiar with its contents than those who thump it at every opportunity.
Mike D...you are so right!That famous non-Bible thumper we call "The Devil" knows the Bible from front to back and back to front so I feel it's the "Believing" part that's the key to understanding its meaning."Non-Bible Thumper... is that a description that indicates a "Non-believer" in Jesus Christ and the Bible's message or is it something else?
Hmmm... Jesus wasn't a Bible Thumper and I'm sure he believed in Himself and his Father. He was not a Bible-thumper as the term is usually conveyed in that he did not ram his message down people's throats. He taught, he led and he said take it or leave it; each will live or die by their own choice but we all had a choice. He did not pass laws in the local government that forced people to follow his lead... I've got a question though... if marriage was a Christian institution created by God and had no secular meaning as well; why did my pagan ancestors get married? King Olaf, an extreme Bible thumper of the "believe by the sword variety" didn't bring Christianity to Norway until several decades later...could marriage have had a secular meaning????
Brian,
Interesting that you bring up your old anti-god you call the "Devil." Notice who Jesus calls the children of the Devil in the gospel accounts. It wasn't the unbelievers - it was the religious, "Bible-thumpers" of his day. The ones who wanted to impose their own version of morality on the rest of the populace. So maybe there is hope for you yet.
You are mistaken about belief being the key, though. James said even the demons believe and tremble. So many Bible-thumpers seem to concentrate on the knots of their favorite trees, and miss the forest when it comes to understanding, particularly regarding the teachings of that first century Jewish rabbi we call Jesus.
I decided to answer my own question and did some research, here are some tidbits:
The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia (Genesis was believed written in 1440 B.C.). Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. Marriage had little to do with love or with religion. Marriage was not expected or intended to preserve the public purity, or to secure domestic happiness, but was rather designed to perpetuate their heroic races, to preserve their rich patrimonial estates, and to maintain the ascendency of their aristocratic families.
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”
I reiterate my stand. Marriage is a secular institution. It can have a religious facet to it if that is how an individual believes; however, it is not a religious institution for all. Therefore a religious argument has no basis in the decision regarding homosexual marriage. It is one of secular rights and we should all enjoy the same secular rights. The claim that polygamous and pedophilic marriage will soon follow is a red herring. Polygamy does not comply with the secular purpose of marriage as one of unclouded inheritance and ascendency and in pedophilic marriage a child does not have the mental and emotional maturity of consent.
I must confess that the blatant violation of our social amenities (as we as a culture have structured) is starting to seriously inhibit my participation in this blog. I do not like to sit at the computer to have my pacemaker work overtime. But the word marriage does not even have roots in the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Norse or Germanic tongues. It is not Latin either. It is from the French. So what is all the fuss about the word marriage, and who should be allowed to use it for their intimate unions? So far the only one who did serious research on it and related subjects is Kim Tanksley. I really do not care enough to do so. I am much more interested in the survival of Tanksley's daughter and all the other children.
How about this...two definitions."Traditional Marriage" and "Homosexual Marriage" with no penalties and the"State" being the only institution that has to acknowledge either.Maybe that way churches and other institutions that do not want to participate can do so without government interference.I see the government taking away their tax free status if some homosexual extremist challenges it if they won't marry them.If "Homosexuals" want to run around calling themselves married...so what.It's just a word and God knows the difference and his intentions and the penalties for such behavior.Why debate that.There will be a lot of doors opened to this kind of activism and none of the leftist geniuses on this blog can accurately predict where it will end...can you?
Brian I get it, trying to define marriage, like how the slaves were defined not too long ago.
We've come a long way but still have a long way to go.
So far the, more than abundant, rhetoric on the California prop 8, has yielded the consensus that most of the pro prop 8 people did not care whether homosexuals committed to each other...just don't call it marriage in violation of God's law. But that would go from the premise that God made his law in the French language, and the English language that took it from he French. (Probably as a result of the Norman invasion.) As I have said, I don't have the desire to do research on it, but I am positive that the Saxons and the Angeln did not call it "marriage".
So it would be best to leave God out of the pro-prop 8 equation, and accept it as what it is, a secular matter to be regulated by secular law. In this instance it would be American laws. To apply it to religious convictions must be an individual's choice, for even religions are as manifold as all other isms.
Am I trying to point out some facts? Yes! Am I trying to teach anything? No! For those whom I could reach are in the know already. And the others would not listen because all their orifices of communication are blocked with Bible fragments to be used and twisted to fit whatever they want it to fit. Among the occidental (European root) nations, that religious Christian fanaticism is peculiarly American. And if someone replies that because of it Americans are better than all other people...the whole world would laugh their heads off.
I also have haerd the suggestion that there be no civil marriage at all, that the legal status of all those choosing to enter into such a contract would be a civil union or domestic partnership for legal reasons. Marriage could be considered a religious blessing or sacrament with the agencies or organizations performing those ceremonies bound only by their own laws and preferences. In other words, if a church, for example, chooses to consider a marriage as only between a man and woman, that could happen with no penalties being incurred to anyone. If a church feels that its tenets allow same-sex couples to be joined in holy matrimony, then they could so that.
So far the, more than abundant, rhetoric on the California prop 8, has yielded the consensus that most of the pro prop 8 people did not care whether homosexuals are committed to each other...just don't call it marriage in violation of God's law. But that would go from the premise that God made his law in the French language, and the English language that took it from he French. (Probably as a result of the Norman invasion.) As I have said, I don't have the desire to do research on it, but I am positive that the Saxons and the Angeln did not call it "marriage".
So it would be best to leave God out of the pro-prop 8 equation, and accept it as what it is, a secular matter to be regulated by secular law. In this instance it would be American laws. To apply it to religious convictions must be an individual's choice, for even religions are as manifold as all other isms.
Am I trying to point out some facts? Yes! Am I trying to teach anything? No! For those whom I could reach are in the know already. And the others would not listen because all their orifices of communication are blocked with Bible fragments to be used and twisted to fit whatever they want it to fit. Among the occidental (European root) nations, that religious Christian fanaticism is peculiarly American. And if someone replies that because of it Americans are better than all other people...the whole world would laugh their heads off.
And I know of the simplest system of them all. Everybody (no matter what religion or no religion) must marry at the official registry, and from there you go to your religious ceremony or not. But a religious ceremony alone is not legal in that country, because the cleric has no power to enforce secular laws pursuant to the joining of the two.
My American husband too had to "marry" me at the registry. After that we had a religious ceremony. That my American husband married me in a civil ceremony made certain that all children from that marriage would always have all rights of inheritance. My native country found that the United States had too many state laws to content with. Since my American daughter was born on Austrian soil, she enjoyed all and every protection of Austrian children. Austria has some of the most stringent child protection laws in the world.
Excellent idea Vicki C. and Isabell, I'm on board with that. The only way to make it work is to do that at the federal level as well. Great ideas.
Kim...I think I may partially agree with your agreement.We are hung up on a word when God may not care about that as much as the sin of homosexuality and the damage it causes to their souls.Marriage is a non-issue in this case if you believe the Bible to be truth.It's like during a fire debating whether it's a cabin or a house.It's still on fire.