Women, last names and marriage...

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by olsonm
Probably not if you want to sue for alimony. Which means you'll just have to get married.

That's a really good reason to get married.

olsonm:
If I got married my wife would have to take my name: my first name. She could keep her last name if she wanted to, I don't care.

Are you being facetious, or am I just being dumb? Why would she have to take your first name? *goes off in search of caffeine*

[edit: the least I can do is spell that really big word. ]

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
That's a really good reason to get married.

Well how else can you sue for alimony?

Are you being facecious, or am I just being dumb? Why would she have to take your first name? *goes off in search of caffeine*

My first name is Michael. I think that's self-explanatory.





Um, of course I'm being fac...that really big word.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Coney
Lief, your contradicting yourself. If a people have a right to choose their religion, then they also have the right to choose their own "moral code". Most countries have laws that protect it's people from the truly "immoral".

Are you saying that anyone who isn't religious does not have morals? I know many people who'm I consider to live very moral lives.....yet they do not indulge in any religious practises.

No I'm not saying that. And I know that there are plenty of people who do behave such a life as that, who are better in that way than most Christians. I am saying, however, that the lack of moral guidelines in society is damaging to our country as a whole. The evidence of that is plain.

The reason why that is is easily answerable on the spiritual level. If a Christian removes God as the center of his life, he falls into all sorts of corruption. So it is with our country. When we remove God from his place of prominence, we take away natural protection. This is visible on the outside and the inside. When morality is taken away, sin abounds. So it is visible in the predicament of our country. We originally were safe, and God was our leader. We took him from being our focus, and as a consequence we have all sorts of problems to deal with that weren't an issue before.

That is the spiritual side. If you look at it from the nonspiritual side, it makes almost as much sense. You take away moral guidelines, such as in an example I will soon relate about violence in schools, and instantly problems arise due to the lack of morality.

Taking away the moral guideline that said 'don't sleep with anyone but your wife' opened Pandora's box as well. Sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted childbirth, family structure problems- none of these were as strong of a problem before, but now, as a consequence of the removed moral, they are. Some people can protect themselves from it. Some people don't have the information. This is merely one of basically every other case in which traditional morality is removed, instances where people have stripped away the traditional moral guidelines and run into trouble.

Were our founding fathers more primitive, or were they just smarter?

Originally posted by Coney
On a much smaller scale, yes, but they were still there. When I read of banditary and similar of the "wild-west" and the practical genocide of the native american indians.......I can only assume that the moral fibre of the founding fathers degenerated very quickly

I've read some rather shocking stuff about a certain area during Thomas Jefferson's presidency that you probably didn't hear of. Yes, I'm not saying that we were completely clean, but the contrast is clear there as well. In those areas that weren't clean, violence and crime abounded. I'm using those areas that were 'clean' as an example of what life can be when morality is prevalent.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Coney
I disagree with this entirely..........these occurences have not happened because of religious freedom.......religious or not a person chooses who they sleep with and they also choose wether to use protection or not.

Freedom may damage certain ignorant individuals, sure. But, what is the alternative? Impose restriction of folks to ensure that they remain celebate until marraige? Hand out punishment for those who do not remain celebate or do get married and commit adultory?.......maybe the USA should adopt a system similiar to that of India.......where eldest male of the family dictates who the children should marry

You seem to be misinterpreting me a little. Yes, what you just suggested is one alternative; not an alternative that I would vote for. What I believe is that morality should be far more prevalent in the culture than it is now. Losing that morality, I believe, is certainly a factor in many of the problems that we now face. I've seen statistics in essays before. There was one I read about violence in schools. In the 1900s, that wasn't a problem. Teachers didn't have to worry about children getting shot to pieces at school, about rape, about drugs- they worried about chewing gum!

Then an act was passed that replaced character education (Moral guidelines) with the view that whatever feels good, or seems right to you is the way to go. It was meant to encourage thought process; I can get material to you and statistics on this one.

When moral guidelines are more prevalent in society, there are many problems we don't have to worry about as much. People are brought up from an early age to know what are acceptable and which things that aren't.

Rape, violence and drugs are all problems that become far more prevalent in a society which has looser morals. If people aren't brought up with correct beliefs, they can't be expected to follow those beliefs in the future. And they don't follow those beliefs, and that is where what you call 'freedom' comes in. There is a difference between freedom and too much freedom. I think that the disintegrating of moral guidelines is the place where that freedom becomes too much freedom. When you do things that aren't morally acceptable.

True Christianity is very moral, and its beliefs were prevalent in our early days. Because of that, we were protected in those early days from many of the problems from which we suffer now. Morality causes better behavior. Lack of morality causes worse behavior. The connection to what was then and what is now is plain as day, and how it got to be like that is also plain.

Originally posted by Coney
Yes I personally don't agree with the concept of marraige.....but I don't think I'm "stripping" anyone else's beliefs.

I'm fairly positive you aren't personally working to strip away anyone's beliefs . No, but you are a part of the popular culture that I have mentioned, and that is a counterculture to the moral one that was originally prevailant in America.

[crickhollow]

I guess since I've live 21 years with a name no one can spell when they've heard it, or pronounce when they've read it, I could stand just about anything for a husband's last name.

good point, Rian, the wife taking on the husband's name is indeed a beautiful picture of the two becoming one.

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Morality is relative.

What do you mean by that?

[Rían]

Originally posted by crickhollow
good point, Rian, the wife taking on the husband's name is indeed a beautiful picture of the two becoming one.

Yes, especially since the husband is the head of the family - that's why she takes his name *runs and takes cover*

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
What do you mean by that?

That morals are very much defined by the culture, and like all cultures, can vary somewhat. You'll always get some prevalent ones which ensure our survival as a species (killing, biological sex taboo, etc), but on the whole, morality is very much a transient thing. For instance, in the western world, monogamy is considered to be the norm, whereas in some other cultures, bigamy is perfectly acceptable.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Yes, especially since the husband is the head of the family - that's why she takes his name *runs and takes cover*

Hah. The BF can't even find his pants without my help, let alone wear them.

[Lizra]

Yeah, If the husband is the head of the family, then this wife is his brain! I'm not right with labeling anyone as the "head" of the family. Husband and wife need equal say and a very healthy "give and take" attitutude when joining and living a life together. Let's keep the power struggles out of it! (in my opinion). My taking my husband's name was a sincere token of my love, and a show of my willingness to commit, 100%.

[Hanza]

Ahh that sounds so sweet. And hell if i ever get married there will be no 1 'head' of the house.

[Rían]

I posted that "head of the family" remark kind of in fun, to get some funny responses back, but since there were several serious ones, I'd like to elaborate a bit.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that men are better than women! Nowhere! (or that women are better than men ) In fact, women and men are referred to as "joint-heirs". The idea of headship in marriage is for several reasons. One is to present a theological picture of Christ and the church, which I won't get into, but the main one, IMO, is to address a very real and practical problem - the making of decisions in a family unit.

Marriage, as God defines it, consists of 2 people, a man and a woman. Now in the course of a marriage, many decisions must be made. When there are 2 people, a majority vote will obviously not be able to decide the issue if the 2 people disagree ; hence one reason for the many divorces that we see today. So one of the roles that God assigned the husband was to be the head of the family unit; IOW, to be the one to make the final decision on an issue when there is disagreement as to which course to take. There is NO superiority issue here (in fact, the husband is specifically instructed to "grant her [his wife] honor")! There needs to be mutual respect and sharing of opinions before a decision, but the responsibility for the final decision, if there is disagreement, comes down to the husband.

BTW, this puts a LOT more responsibility (and thus MAJOR accountability before God) on the husband - for he should never make a decision with his own best interests in mind, only those of the family, or even put his wife's best interests above his own. What the people that deride the "submission" concept fail to realize is that in the verse immediately after the wife's submission verse, the husband is commanded to love his wife "as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" - a pretty tall order, considering Christ died for the church!

Also, submission doesn't mean being a doormat or turning off your brain. If my husband asked me to shoot our next-door neighbor, for example, I would refuse to, as that is clearly wrong.

A good example of these concepts in action is our decision a year ago to buy a Chevy Suburban SUV. After a LOT of discussion and going over budgets, etc., it came down to: he thought we could swing it and I thought we couldn't. As we had clearly discussed everything there was to discuss, I turned it over to him for the final decision, and he decided to go ahead with the purchase (which makes a lot of sense for our family, considering when we go camping, we have to transport 2 adults, 3 kids, a big hairy dog, a very large electric wheelchair/scooter, and pull a trailer!). And lest you think it was a selfish decision, I'm the one that really wanted the 'Burb! I love those cars!

So Lizra, I would say that there was "equal say and a very healthy "give and take" attitutude when joining and living a life together", as you said, and there was no power struggle. It's very unfortunate that many people misunderstand this concept, and even worse when people abuse it.

[Wayfarer]

Do you mean to say that you can't have a working democracy with only two people?

As for the reason why the man (and not the woman) should be the 'head' of the house, I think it's because *gasp* men and women are different, and this is one area in which men perform better.

I would certainly rather deal with the father as representative of the household than the mother...

By the By, Rian. We both read lewis too much, don't you think?

But as for naming conventions... Well, what's in a name? Would not a rose...

Nevermind. Don't want to land anyone in a double suicide, now do we? ]: )

[Rían]

Was your first question directed at me? If so, as far as "counting votes" on a subject - no, if the 2 people involved disagree. I don't recall God setting up a marriage along the lines of a democracy. It's more along the lines of serving each other

Yes, I agree that men are better suited to be the head of the household (and God gave them special talents for that purpose!). Men and women ARE different - and how fun that can be! (also very perplexing and irritating sometimes...)

Yes, I was thinking of Lewis' example along the lines of 'if your dog bites the child next door, who would you rather deal with, the mom or the dad?' I really like Lewis. Have you read "The problem of pain" yet?

**PS - would you please clean out your PM mailbox? I'd like to PM you something.**

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Wayfarer


As for the reason why the man (and not the woman) should be the 'head' of the house, I think it's because *gasp* men and women are different, and this is one area in which men perform better.

Lizra asks........"Why do you think men perform better in this area?"

I would certainly rather deal with the father as representative of the household than the mother...

Once again, why?

Obviously, I'm not a Christian and have no interest in using the Bible as a guidebook for my life, so we are happy (my husband and myself) to work things out as fairly as we can. Since we both place the other's happiness as a high priority, we've never come across a problem yet that we couldn't work out. We are both the head of the household.

Added: Really, do whatever you want. Whatever makes you (both! ) happy.

[Rían]

To Whom it May Concern:

My big long post was just to explain how I view the Christian position re husband/wife stuff, because I think some people have some wrong ideas about it. I hope it helped explain some things I don't expect non-Christians to conform to it - why should they? - unless they think it sounds like a good idea.

Lizra, I'm really happy to hear about your marriage - it thrills me to hear of any strong marriage, because divorce is so painful to everyone involved. Of course, you guys just need to do whatever seems right to you, and it certainly sounds like you're both respecting and loving each other, which is great (and in-line with my beliefs, BTW ) Go for it!

We had a marriage retreat at our church last year, based for fun on the Survivor theme - we had games eating yucky stuff, etc. I like the motto - Outserve, Outlove, Outlast - instead of whatever the Survivor thing was - OutConnive, OutStabInTheBack or whatever.