10. There wouldn't be anyone to feed the disgusting left-overs to.

9. You would have to start mowing the lawn and cleaning up dog doo-doo yourself.

8. You would no longer have him as an excuse to tell the kids NO!

7. There wouldn't be an "In-House" Roto Rooter man, to clean it off after the fixin'!

6. You'd make his/her life too darn easy!

5. The bounced checks would then only hurt your credit.

4. A girl's night out wouldn't mean as much with a sitter there, instead of him, all bent out of shape.

3. You would miss out on all the "GOLD" fiftieth wedding anniversary gifts.

2. The shoes the dog insists on destroying would then be your own.

1. You know darn well that a divorce would send him into a mid-life crises, and he would find a 20-year old babe! http://operamom.com/topten.html

That Are Some Of The Benefits Of Staying Married?

It takes a lot of work, but solving problems within a marriage is one of the strongest messages you can give your children. Couples that work through issues end up with stronger marriages and a level of happiness beyond anything they could have imagined on the day they took their wedding vows.


Marriage and staying married, is not only beneficial to the children of the marriage but offers great benefits to those who choose to stay in the marriage. Below are a few things to consider if you are contemplating divorce.

Unless you are in an abusive relationship or one strife with infidelity with increasing STD disease you might want to reconsider that divorce.

1. Emotional Benefits of Marriage:

Contrary to popular belief, marriage gives men and women an equal mental health boost. In 1972, sociologist Jessie Bernard looked at symptoms of anxiety, depression, neurosis and passivity in married and unmarried people. She found that men were better off married than single, and concluded that they got those benefits at the expense of women. That became a central tenet of the women's liberation movement in the 1970s, and is still often cited. But psychologist David de Vaus from La Trobe University in Melbourne points out that Bernard's research only looked at a narrow definition of stress. "It is well known that women are much more likely to score highly on those disorders," he says. Most research has ignored the fact that mental disorder can manifest itself in men in the form of drug and alcohol abuse, de Vaus claims. So, in conclusion, marriage benefits both men and women when it comes to emotional health.


2. Marriage can make you look younger.

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, Jan 30, 2006 (UPI via COMTEX) -- Danish researchers say a happy marriage and plenty of money can take years off of a person's appearance.

The study, conducted by the University of Southern Demark, found that a married woman who has not spent a lot of time in the sun, could look at least seven years younger than a woman who is single. Also, marriage can make a woman look almost two years younger by the time she reaches middle age.
3. Financial reasons to stay married. {p]It is clear that divorce often comes with a financial penalty: 47 per cent of divorced people say divorce made their financial situation worse. In fact, respondents to the survey also reported that because of their divorce:
* 35 per cent had to go into greater debt.
* 22 per cent had to seek financial support from friends and family;.
* 28 per cent had to sell household items or personal assets; and.
* 27 per cent had to sell or redeem financial investments.

Children are affected financially as well. One poll found that 44 per cent of people said it was extremely difficult to save for post- secondary education after divorce.

4. Children of divorce are more likely to divorce.]/ol] Children of divorced parents often vow not to repeat the same mistakes their parents did. They want to avoid putting themselves and their own children through the pain and stress that comes from divorce.

5. Better Health for both partners for several reasons including greater financial position, better health care options, better diet and higher nutritional intake daily and more exercise, vacations on more regular basis.

"Growing up in a divorced family greatly increases the chances of ending one’s own marriage, a phenomenon called the divorce cycle or the intergenerational transmission of divorce" says Wolfinger, assistant professor in the University of Utah’s Department of Family and Consumer Studies.

Wolfinger has spent a decade studying the marriages of children from divorced homes in America. These children are more likely to marry as teens, cohabitate and marry someone who is also a child of divorced parents. And they are also one-third less likely to marry if they are over age 20.

The number of unmarried couples living together increased 72% between 1990 and 2000.
- U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

he number of unmarried couples living together increased 72% between 1990 and 2000.
- U.S. Census Bureau, 2000


Living Alone

As of 2000, the most common household type in the U.S. is people living alone. 27 million American households consist of a person living alone, compared to 25 million households with a husband, wife, and child.

Unmarried childbearing and parenting:
41% of unmarried partner households have children under 18 living in them.
- U.S. Census Bureau, America's Families and Living Arrangements 2000 - Wonder how that compares to single parents with children living below the poverty level?


About two-fifths of children are expected to live in a cohabiting household at some point.
- U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 -


55% of different-sex cohabitors get married within 5 years of moving in together.
40% break up within that same time period. About 10% remain in an unmarried relationship five years or longer.
- Smock, Pamela (2000). "Cohabitation in the United States." Annual Review of Sociology.

The majority of couples marrying today have lived together first (53% of women's first marriages are preceded by cohabitation).


There are 100 million single and unmarried adults in the U.S. (some living alone, some living with partners, families, roommates, etc.).
- U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 - Probably should own a DATING PAY WEB-SITE - great market! OOPS!!

One-third of divorce litigation is caused by online affairs - This Is An Internet E-Mergency"!!



Marital status of American adults:
Men:
1890: 48% unmarried
1900: 47%
1910: 46%
1920: 42%
1930: 42%
1940: 40%
1950: 32%( industrial revelotion)
1960: 30%
1970: 34%
1980: 37%
1990: 39%
2000: 42%

Women:
1890: 45% unmarried
1900: 45%
1910: 43%
1920: 41%
1930: 41%
1940: 40%
1950: 34% (industrial revalution)
1960: 34%
1970: 39%
1980: 41%
1990: 43%
2000: 45%


33% of all births are to unmarried women.
- National Center for Health Statistics, 2000 data (report released 2002)
41% of first births to unmarried women are actually babies born to cohabiting couples, not "single" women, within 5 years of moving in together. 40% break up within that same time period.

./,.//,/.,/.,/.,/.,/.,/.,./,./,/,./,./,/.,./,/.,/,

DISEASE ISSUES;

In 2006, 1,030,911 chlamydial infections were reported to CDC from 50 states and the District of Columbia. The reported number of cases of chlamydial infection was nearly three times greater than the reported cases of gonorrhea (358,366 gonorrhea cases were reported in 2006). From 1987 through 2006, the reported rate of chlamydial infection in women increased from 78.5 cases to 515.8 cases per 100,000 population (Figure 1). These increases in the reported national chlamydia rate likely represent increased chlamydia screening, increased use of nucleic acid amplification tests, which are more sensitive than other types of screening tests, and improved reporting, as well as the continuing high burden of disease.
In 2006, state- and outlying area-specific chlamydia rates among women ranged up to 988.6 per 100,000 (Figure 2).
Chlamydia case rates continue to remain high in all races and ethnicities (Figure 3).

In 2006, the rate of chlamydia among blacks was over eight times higher than that of whites (1275.0 and 153.1 cases per 100,000, respectively). In 2006, case rates were higher than 2005 case rates in all racial/ethnic groups, with the exception of Asian Pacific Islanders.


Among women, the highest age -specific rates of reported chlamydia in 2006 were among
age 15- to 19-year-olds (2862.7 cases per 100,000 females)(probably due to higher than average sleep overs between same sex teen females and sexual expermintation) and
20- to 24-year-olds (2797.0 cases per (vastly due to same sex experiences) ((Just when women thought it was safer to have SAME-SEX sexual relationships as opposed to hetro-sexual relationships. Condoms reduce a lot of the diseases women are susceptible to get in a hetro sexual relationship, where as in a same sex relationship cleanliness is not practiced any better and more often than not - not at all. )) http://www.cdc.gov/std/Chlamydia2006/CTSurvSupp2006Short.pdf



.,.,,,,.,.,..,.,.,.,,..,,.,.,..,.,.,.,.,.,
The number of unmarried couples living together has increased tenfold between 1960 and 2000.
- U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.

Please tell me what your point is with this Loooooooong post...

Britty (sorry I forgot to quote)


Well I dont know for certain it was Paul but it sounds like him. Are you asking why do I feel that Paul was a misogynist? Do you have a moment to spare, or a decade?

I do not believe he did show a hatred of women, if the texts are read in context and with understanding of the reasons for what he wrote and the culture of the people he was addressing.

Just one example or a brief summary of your thoughts would be sufficient. I doubt very much it would take a decade.

Well I could go on for a long time about it but if you want me to pick one thing that I dont like about Paul and why I feel he really did not care for women at all, it relates to his indoctrination and condemnation of females teaching inside the church. Here is a couple more quotes


1 Corinthians 14: 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Tim. 2: 11 Let a woman learn in peace, fully submitted; 12 but I do not permit a woman to teach a man or exercise authority over him; rather, she is to remain at peace.

"She is to remain at peace." I am certainly not comfortable with the implication of this statement and to this day, this doctrine is still enforced in certain denominations and churches. Im not saying all of course but some are very restrictive of women and their role in the church.

Well, Krimsa I can see why you would not like this particular teaching if you have seen something like it in certain churches. I have not been a witness to anything like that.

Unfortunately, that is an example of man's doctrine and misunderstanding, not the actual
teaching of Paul as he was addressing it to the recipients of his letter. I believe this instance was the the church at Corinth, which had been pagan before conversion to Christianity.

If you read about Priscilla and Aquilla you will notice that Priscilla did teach and so did other women during the time of Paul. He was great friends with that couple, which is evident by the way he greets them and asks the followers to greet them.

Well thank you for at least acknowledging why I might genuinely have an aversion to this doctrine as it applies to women. Sometimes I simply am yelled at or told Im "misinterpreting". I just dont know how drastically someone can misinterpret these passages.

My understanding of Paul was that he was known for not being very affectionate. He might have even been homosexual. There was definitely something emanating from his being which smacked of an inherent distrust of females. He was also considerably forthright in this position. I suppose I could accept what you are saying at face value and just assume that Paul had some other agenda that was totally and completely misconstrued by men when they were relaying this. I find it REALLY hard to swallow that something like that could be so ass backward or lost in translation. I need to be honest with you. That also leaves you with a couple options.

1. Paul was indeed not divinely inspired at all and was simply a woman hater. That would relieve god from some of this responsibility but also implies that these men were simply men with no direct connections to anything divine.

2. Paul was actually interpreting directly from what god was in fact imparting to him and god is a misogynist ass.

Krisma,

As a female church worker, I have struggled a lot with some of the same issues you seem to be talking about here. I'm a bit of a nerd, so when I hit a road block, I turn to research to figure things out. You might be interested to know that, on the scholarly level, there is fairly good evidence that the Corinthians passage you quoted is a later addition to the original Pauline letter, which ENCOURAGES women to preach and prophesy in assemblies (chapter 11, I believe). The two books of Timothy are "disputed" writings of Paul; most scholars (about 80%) believe individuals and communities wrote these letters in the name of Paul after the man's death. (This was a common practice at that time.)

It does not change the fact that these passages exist within Christian canon, and it does not lessen their impact on the person in the pew, but it does help me to understand the historical Paul in a different light.

Interesting. I will look into that, however as you know, Paul is probably cited the most for his apparent misogynistic undertones and there are many passages in the bible that are hateful and anti-female.

Paul is probably the least of it really as that was in the NT.

Have you ever done any research on older pagan spirituality and Goddess worship that predated Christianity by thousands of years? Some archeologists believe extending as far back as the Neolithic.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

There's your proof. Hell, just do a Google search, there's pages of it.

So did you have sex before you got married?


Hmmmmm?


Mr Op... and all other allegedly christian posters???

And I mean all of the facets of sexual exploration up to but not necessarily penetration?


If any of you KNOW that you did, AND GOT divorced....

blow your Paul and other dudes out your ear.

Paul was a misogynist ass. It’s right there in black and white in the bible. Quit making excuses for him.

Well, my ideal of personal purity has nothing to do with what something men wrote telling what is purity.

Personal purity is holding oneself to one's own standards of good. I hold myself to my own standards of good and my personal purity is in tack for me each and every day. I define good standards as those of one who tries not to hurt others, no matter how different they be from myself, of not being dishonest with others or myself even if my opinion is different, being true to myself at all times, etc...

So this purity thing does not have to extend to denial of sexual or intimate activity.

Not just Paul was anti woman in the bible. From the beginning of the story that is told women have caught the bad rap in the bible. Secondary citizens to men who have no control over themselves unless a man or men is there to keep her "evil" under control.

The bible is one of the reasons women have such conflicting feelings these days about being equal to a man. How can they practice a religion that places them subservient and then still be equal in all other areas?

"burn with sexual passion"

Burn with sexual passion.....
so that explains instantaneous human combustion....


right..........

I gotta give him his props for certainly having some creative interpretations of scripture.

I can totally agree with you--the Bible is often a stumbling block to the faith even as its writers seek to build up that faith.

I personally take all stories and understand them in their context. You can't read any of the stories in the Bible out of context and expect to have a decent grasp of what they are trying to say. The Bible isn't a collection of dead texts. They all live and breathe within the cultures of their times.

I think perhaps the objections being raised here are not about God but about the humanness the Bible carries in its pages. Just my thoughts.