"Being in a relationship is not easy, more than half of all first marriages fail in this country. That statistic doesn't improve if you spend most of your time reading your favorite website and not tending to the needs of your family."
A coworker & I were discussing the alarming amount of people around us who are divorced. It's really crazy.
We bagan betting which state would have the highest divorce rate... probably New York or California I had thought. We decided to look up the annual divorce rates by state [statemaster.com] and were shocked to see that some states in the bible belt [wikipedia.org] states are relatively high. One of our most cherished institutions indeed!
People get married too soon. Divorce is better then being in a miserable relationship all your life bacause of some social stigma. Not so say people should try to make it work, but that doesn't mean it will. Morals is a religious word, so if my ebbing morals you mean "Failure for a women to be the subservant bitch the bible says she's supposed to be" then yeah, ebbing morals. Fortunately it's not from ebbing ethics.
I would like to add that the bible does not demand that a woman be subservient to her husband. It does prescribe that she be subordinate, in that both partners have equal worth but the husband must accept responsibility for the marriage. The husband must respect his wife's emotions and intelligence, and make decisions while taking consideration of her feelings and input. Basically, he is what the perfect manager would be.
To believers, this is akin to how the Son answers to the Father; but because they
I disagree with the moral aspect of it - on whether it is morally correct to follow. Mainly because of many examples in the stories, along with the culture this was written in.
I swear everytime I hear comments about the bible by some christians they sound like some backup in a Robin Hood movie or something. Also notice the comments on the botttom - of wedded women understanding and agreeing that they enjoy and will continue to submissively hon
I would never follow the morals that it teaches when it comes to women- If I take that seriously, then it is a very politically correct viewpoint. A great ethical standpoint if you mean it to apply in these matters. If you read some more about the psychology of women and look to historical sources, you'll find that the 'teaching' as you put it is not against women, but accommodates them. That is a generalization, but the principal is there. My point being that there are other factors at work here. Some of them are explained in tantric sex where the woman wants to be aggressive, then submissive and subservient. In Hindu mythology, Krsna appeared before all women who had him as they each desired. After that, they became dutiful to their families. 'Duty', aggression and submission - even subservience was looked at and even now is looked at as the choice of each individual woman in or out of a relationship. But it's the women who feel the need for a relationship much more than man. Another generalization I know, but bear with me. The physiognomy and biological purpose of Woman is to bear children. Understandably they have an innate desire to care for their children. The best way of doing that is to form a family unit with Man. Man however is not monogamous for long (another generalization). So the rules of monogamy explained in different ancient texts are principally founded on the creation, maintenance and continuance of humanity, Man and Woman having their own part based on their respective physiognomy and psychology. So the morality that you complain about has a purpose, to maintain the basic fundamental triad of Man, Woman and Child even though it may not suit Man for example. Every society has its specific rules, traditions and conventions, but they all point to the same thing: Man as the hunter, Woman as the gatherer. In times of abundance, this breaks down a little with some tribes of Australian Aborigines in certain areas, where the men hunt and eat for themselves. It's only if there is excess food that they give it to the women and children. In some cases, women also have to provide for themselves and their children. That culture has survived for many thousands of years without any biblical laws. Women aren't so subservient and for that they have to be much more responsible for themselves and their children.
Now in politically correct speak, what you say is wonderful and I agree, but never make the assumption that all women for example don't want to be submissive or subservient or that all men want to be aggressive and polygamous. There are so many women out there who are suffering from this political correctness as they now feel that they can't be submissive, or feel it inappropriate to be a homemaker or dutiful wife when what they desire is exactly that. To each his own.
Divorce Rates (Score:5, Interesting)
"Being in a relationship is not easy, more than half of all first marriages fail in this country. That statistic doesn't improve if you spend most of your time reading your favorite website and not tending to the needs of your family."
A coworker & I were discussing the alarming amount of people around us who are divorced. It's really crazy.
... probably New York or California I had thought. We decided to look up the annual divorce rates by state [statemaster.com] and were shocked to see that some states in the bible belt [wikipedia.org] states are relatively high. One of our most cherished institutions indeed!
:)
We bagan betting which state would have the highest divorce rate
We both had forgotten about Vegas!
These numbers look really low because it'
Re: (Score:2)
People get married too soon.
Divorce is better then being in a miserable relationship all your life bacause of some social stigma.
Not so say people should try to make it work, but that doesn't mean it will.
Morals is a religious word, so if my ebbing morals you mean "Failure for a women to be the subservant bitch the bible says she's supposed to be" then yeah, ebbing morals. Fortunately it's not from ebbing ethics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
To believers, this is akin to how the Son answers to the Father; but because they
Re: (Score:1)
http://hubpages.com/hub/Is_the_husband_the_Master_of_the_wife [hubpages.com]
I swear everytime I hear comments about the bible by some christians they sound like some backup in a Robin Hood movie or something. Also notice the comments on the botttom - of wedded women understanding and agreeing that they enjoy and will continue to submissively hon
Re:Divorce Rates (Score:2)
I would never follow the morals that it teaches when it comes to women-
If I take that seriously, then it is a very politically correct viewpoint. A great ethical standpoint if you mean it to apply in these matters.
If you read some more about the psychology of women and look to historical sources, you'll find that the 'teaching' as you put it is not against women, but accommodates them. That is a generalization, but the principal is there.
My point being that there are other factors at work here. Some of them are explained in tantric sex where the woman wants to be aggressive, then submissive and subservient. In Hindu mythology, Krsna appeared before all women who had him as they each desired. After that, they became dutiful to their families.
'Duty', aggression and submission - even subservience was looked at and even now is looked at as the choice of each individual woman in or out of a relationship. But it's the women who feel the need for a relationship much more than man. Another generalization I know, but bear with me. The physiognomy and biological purpose of Woman is to bear children. Understandably they have an innate desire to care for their children. The best way of doing that is to form a family unit with Man. Man however is not monogamous for long (another generalization).
So the rules of monogamy explained in different ancient texts are principally founded on the creation, maintenance and continuance of humanity, Man and Woman having their own part based on their respective physiognomy and psychology.
So the morality that you complain about has a purpose, to maintain the basic fundamental triad of Man, Woman and Child even though it may not suit Man for example.
Every society has its specific rules, traditions and conventions, but they all point to the same thing: Man as the hunter, Woman as the gatherer. In times of abundance, this breaks down a little with some tribes of Australian Aborigines in certain areas, where the men hunt and eat for themselves. It's only if there is excess food that they give it to the women and children. In some cases, women also have to provide for themselves and their children. That culture has survived for many thousands of years without any biblical laws. Women aren't so subservient and for that they have to be much more responsible for themselves and their children.
Now in politically correct speak, what you say is wonderful and I agree, but never make the assumption that all women for example don't want to be submissive or subservient or that all men want to be aggressive and polygamous.
There are so many women out there who are suffering from this political correctness as they now feel that they can't be submissive, or feel it inappropriate to be a homemaker or dutiful wife when what they desire is exactly that. To each his own.