Personal Tnoughts on Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.

c1ners

Senior Contributor
Dec 12, 2005
14,753
1,725
59
US
✟30,977.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Would it be as funny if the genders were reversed? If she initiated the assault and he retaliated with violence?

No. I know two wrongs don't make a right. It's just a funny image in my head. I probably wouldn't even grab a man by his bits to begin with. I was just trying to take some of the seriousness out of the thread. You've got to admit, (if you knew me that is) it would be kind of funny. I am one of the most quietest women I know. People walk over me left and right. For me to be bold enough to grab a man by his bits, twist them and scream at the top of my lungs is a pretty funny thing for me to imagine. Not right, but funny.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 15, 2009
6,988
385
Canada
✟16,558.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
In my personal walk with God, I put Him above any other man, woman, child, or law that exists in this world; I let HIM to be the judge, and He says we aren't to judge others, lest we be judged ourselves. Yes, we are to follow the laws of the land. However, if those laws contradict the Bible, then my faith comes first. My Savior comes first, and He teaches love and forgiveness. Not an acceptance of sin, but one of love and forgiveness. These boys, yes, they committed wrongdoing. But was their intent to commit a crime? Hardly.

I worked as a security officer in a retail store for a while. If someone attempted to steal merchandise that amounted to over a certain dollar amount, it was considered a felony. A group of thirteen year old kids came in one day and one was caught with that certain amount in merchandise. He was thirteen, and was gonna be a felon for the rest of his life. Would to go jail, and all this other stuff.

My boss talked to the kid, asked him why he was doing it and the kid was very remorseful. My boss knocked the amount of merch the kid stole down to a misdemeanor, instead of a felony. His foster mom was called. His parents had been killed a couple years before, and he was too old to be in an orphanage so he was sent to live with foster parents. He'd been troublesome since they'd had him.

Does this excuse him stealing things? Course not. But the kid was hurting inside. Because he was so young(if he had been 17 or older my manager would not have done this) my manager lessened the charge down to a misdemeanor. The kid was still taken into the police station by the cops, etc. But he didn't go to jail, he wasn't going to be classified as a felon for the rest of his life.

Some things are mistakes. My husband had a situation when he was sixteen. He was driving down the road in his parents car(it wasn't a sports car, but it was a nice car), and didn't see a stop sign because of some low hanging branches. A woman, who was going 45 mph in a 25 mph are, broadsided him. The police showed up. The woman said he had been speeding(which he had, but he was only going four or five miles an hour more than the speed limit. She'd been going MUCH faster), and because he was only sixteen, the cop was going to throw him under the bus. He wasn't even done with HS, and the cop was going to have him sent to jail for five years, with an obscene fine to boot. DH got a state councilor and she managed to get them to drop those charges, as long as he didn't get a ticket for a whole year. The woman who was speeding? She wasn't ticketed or fined or anything.

Sometimes, kids and teens make mistakes. They are, after all, kids and teens. That doesn't excuse bad behavior, but nor does it mean they should be treated as though they're an adult. We're talking about a generation who's graduating HS, while barely able to read and write, and yet you expect them to behave like adults? And, moreover, want them tried as criminals like adults? That makes no sense to me. According to that line of thinking, my husband and I wouldn't even be married right now, because he only would have gotten out of jail two years ago, for something that wasn't even entirely his fault. It was a mistake.

Yes, these boys were harassing these girls. Yes, they should be punished. But they aren't criminals. They don't need to go to jail, they don't need to be labeled sex offenders. Punish them, yes. But don't be so quick to throw them under the bus. THAT WILL ruin their lives. Give the girls counciling, and the boys, help them to know what they did wasn't right or acceptable just because they saw it in a movie, and move on. Sometimes kids and teens make mistakes.

Not one person has said "boys will be boys." but to not have the vehement response of the absolute letter of the law has to be coddling. They don't accept any other possible interpretation. This is why this conversation is stuck. At heart in the gender wars feminists want to criminalize anything they disapprove of, like any group of revolutionaries on a power trip. They aren't interested in what social mores or the lack thereof trigger this behavior, they aren't interested in genuinely educating. They are offended and they want to blame and see judgment done, period. You've seen the responses. Christianity is irrelevant to them in this case.
 
Upvote 0

JaneFW

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2005
8,058
752
61
IRL
✟11,369.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not one person has said "boys will be boys." but to not have the vehement response of the absolute letter of the law has to be coddling. They don't accept any other possible interpretation. This is why this conversation is stuck. At heart in the gender wars feminists want to criminalize anything they disapprove of, like any group of revolutionaries on a power trip. They aren't interested in what social mores or the lack thereof trigger this behavior, they aren't interested in genuinely educating. They are offended and they want to blame and see judgment done, period. You've seen the responses. Christianity is irrelevant to them in this case.
McScribe, if you read back several pages, you will see there are plenty of "boys will be boys" type of comments. I'm not going to go and find them, but I went back myself and found them myself. They are there. "Kids are kids" "it's hormonal" that kind of thing. Those are excuses for bad behavior. "Social mores" is an excuse. I've said and said and said it: kids know that you don't touch other kids. They know it. Maybe they did see a stupid movie, but it doesn't replace the teaching they have previously received that you don't touch.

You seem to be stuck on blaming - I dunno me, maybe? - for saying that it is the law of the land. How can I overwrite the law? Why should anyone overwrite the law? It's meant for the protection of everyone who is assaulted or hurt or robbed, injured, whatever. How about someone drives into your car this evening and says that he only answers to God so he doesn't have to wait for the cops, or give you his insurance information, and you can pay for your own damages. It wouldn't work, would it? You would be pretty hacked off because that guy committed a criminal offence and now is saying he doesn't have to deal with the consequences.

As for feminists "criminalizing things" - it's a crime to assault someone. Period. It's nothing to do with feminism. It's a criminal act. Nobody changed anything on their power trip, nobody. A boy touching a girl without her consent is assault. A girl touching a boy without his consent is assault. Period. I don't ever want to see the law change on that one. (There are other variations of assault than boy/girl of course, but those aren't being discussed.)
 
Upvote 0

Conservativation

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
11,163
416
✟13,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not one person has said "boys will be boys." but to not have the vehement response of the absolute letter of the law has to be coddling. They don't accept any other possible interpretation. This is why this conversation is stuck. At heart in the gender wars feminists want to criminalize anything they disapprove of, like any group of revolutionaries on a power trip. They aren't interested in what social mores or the lack thereof trigger this behavior, they aren't interested in genuinely educating. They are offended and they want to blame and see judgment done, period. You've seen the responses. Christianity is irrelevant to them in this case.

Its not about just the law either, though McScribe. Whatever the response is, it must make them FEEL vicariously vindicated against MEN. You could probably structure a response that didnt coincide with the law, as long as it was sufficiently vicious to provoke the feelings that YOU are "feeling it"....feeling the anger and the injustices and the pain and the ire ans the misery and therefore the necessary and proportionate backlash. That a physical attack in response would maybe also be illegal, see, is also not relevant. That consequence, breaking the law in return for it being broken, doesnt really matter, what matters is that ferocious justice was meted out against these boys, nothing LESS THAN the law. Of course the nice thing about the law doing it though is that they can say, "well its the law and we have to live under it", what they are missing (in addition to the other million things including no one excusing them) is that you weren't even commenting on the law per se, being wrong or bad. It was a conversation, here among the uninvolved, where regardless of the law we are free to DISCUSS it, its too much, its not enough, etc etc. See we can even though its the law say it was too much or not enough, and the law is still the law.

They are hiding behind the law to kill the discussion and to prevent people from saying anything that doesnt elicit the level of venom they wish to feel.

It is more Orwellian feelings based speech code, pure and simple, when Christians cannot discuss an event DESPITE the law. Its JUST a discussion, using the law to shut it down is cheap.

Imagine that exact same tactic on, say, oh I dont know, partial birth abortion in the 9th month.....what if that was the law.....and you wanted to discuss it.....would people say, "but its the law and it is what it is?"....nope, they would say its the law, but lets discuss whats wrong with it.

This however is patriarchal and against women, these boys will grow into beaters and cheaters at best, rapists and molesters more likely. SO, toss'em
 
Upvote 0

Conservativation

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
11,163
416
✟13,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
McScribe, if you read back several pages, you will see there are plenty of "boys will be boys" type of comments. I'm not going to go and find them, but I went back myself and found them myself. They are there. "Kids are kids" "it's hormonal" that kind of thing. Those are excuses for bad behavior. "Social mores" is an excuse. I've said and said and said it: kids know that you don't touch other kids. They know it. Maybe they did see a stupid movie, but it doesn't replace the teaching they have previously received that you don't touch.

You seem to be stuck on blaming - I dunno me, maybe? - for saying that it is the law of the land. How can I overwrite the law? Why should anyone overwrite the law? It's meant for the protection of everyone who is assaulted or hurt or robbed, injured, whatever. How about someone drives into your car this evening and says that he only answers to God so he doesn't have to wait for the cops, or give you his insurance information, and you can pay for your own damages. It wouldn't work, would it? You would be pretty hacked off because that guy committed a criminal offence and now is saying he doesn't have to deal with the consequences.

As for feminists "criminalizing things" - it's a crime to assault someone. Period. It's nothing to do with feminism. It's a criminal act. Nobody changed anything on their power trip, nobody. A boy touching a girl without her consent is assault. A girl touching a boy without his consent is assault. Period. I don't ever want to see the law change on that one. (There are other variations of assault than boy/girl of course, but those aren't being discussed.)

Please cut and paste ONE boys will be boys comment (and after that I will tell you want the comment really means, and what was really said plainly)
 
Upvote 0

dallasapple

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2006
9,845
1,169
✟13,920.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not one person has said "boys will be boys." but to not have the vehement response of the absolute letter of the law has to be coddling. They don't accept any other possible interpretation. This is why this conversation is stuck. At heart in the gender wars feminists want to criminalize anything they disapprove of, like any group of revolutionaries on a power trip. They aren't interested in what social mores or the lack thereof trigger this behavior, they aren't interested in genuinely educating. They are offended and they want to blame and see judgment done, period. You've seen the responses. Christianity is irrelevant to them in this case.

Why would you NOT follow the letter of the law in this case..and you would in others?I think the point is its NOT about Christianity unless you dont think Christians should EVER go by the letter of the law..ANY law..

Why would in THIS case there be an exception to the law?What makes this situation different..

Dallas
 
Upvote 0

Conservativation

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
11,163
416
✟13,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Personally? I'm confident enough in my faith and in my beliefs not to let the accusations of others bother me. What bothers me more is the common disrespect that is prevelant in so many discussions. There is no need for it, IMO.

How I believe is between me and God. I pray regularly and seek His guidance and firmly believe He will convict me to believe differently wherever growth is needed on my part. That, to me, is much more substantial that the gnashing of teeth that I might receive for expressing my POV on a topic.

smile.gif

Thats great Faith. I'll try to find a big smile to paste on my face and remove my concern when I get my lobotomy. Literally, I don't give a care about this anymore.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This......

See, it needs to be figured out that the problem is not just some level of respect thing in many topics. You cant care about that anymore, you just cant.
I wish it was a just cant everyone get along and be nice matter, it isnt, its far from it.

There is only one possible way to interact in the "discussion" (sic) like this and have it not still be disrespect flying, and thats to not ever even have the discussion, to not respond, and to sit thru pages of lathering up and up and up the rhetoric with the not so cute mean sarcasm and fraudulent garbage that passes for answers.

Im with McS I dont care about any of that disrespect as the issue anymore either, and havent for a long time
 
Upvote 0

JaneFW

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2005
8,058
752
61
IRL
✟11,369.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No. I know two wrongs don't make a right. It's just a funny image in my head. I probably wouldn't even grab a man by his bits to begin with. I was just trying to take some of the seriousness out of the thread. You've got to admit, (if you knew me that is) it would be kind of funny. I am one of the most quietest women I know. People walk over me left and right. For me to be bold enough to grab a man by his bits, twist them and scream at the top of my lungs is a pretty funny thing for me to imagine. Not right, but funny.

You made me think of this:

YouTube - ‪Shopping in Texas‬‏

Not that it has anything to do with this post, but just the thing about shooting people if you are in TX.

Made me laugh anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mkgal1
Upvote 0
Apr 15, 2009
6,988
385
Canada
✟16,558.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Personally? I'm confident enough in my faith and in my beliefs not to let the accusations of others bother me. What bothers me more is the common disrespect that is prevelant in so many discussions. There is no need for it, IMO.

How I believe is between me and God. I pray regularly and seek His guidance and firmly believe He will convict me to believe differently wherever growth is needed on my part. That, to me, is much more substantial that the gnashing of teeth that I might receive for expressing my POV on a topic.

smile.gif

Thats great Faith. I'll try to find a big smile to paste on my face and remove my concern when I get my lobotomy. Literally, I don't give a care about this anymore.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This......

See, it needs to be figured out that the problem is not just some level of respect thing in many topics. You cant care about that anymore, you just cant.
I wish it was a just cant everyone get along and be nice matter, it isnt, its far from it.

There is only one possible way to interact in the "discussion" (sic) like this and have it not still be disrespect flying, and thats to not ever even have the discussion, to not respond, and to sit thru pages of lathering up and up and up the rhetoric with the not so cute mean sarcasm and fraudulent garbage that passes for answers.

Im with McS I dont care about any of that disrespect as the issue anymore either, and havent for a long time

Faith is thoughtful and kind, and means no one any harm, but i reserve the right to be concerned about injustice and frustrated when others dismiss the faith that they supposedly share with me out of a draconian respect for the law.
 
Upvote 0

Conservativation

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
11,163
416
✟13,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Faith is thoughtful and kind, and means no one any harm, but i reserve the right to be concerned about injustice and frustrated when others dismiss the faith that they supposedly share with me out of a draconian respect for the law.

Great, not sure I challenged faiths thoughtfulness, I just think she is wrong about this, that it is not the tone of disrespect that is the problem here.

I do not think they have a draconian respect for the law at all. I dont think thats the motive whatsoever. The law, in THIS case, happens to coincide with what they want. if it didnt, it wouldnt be the issue on this thread.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Apr 15, 2009
6,988
385
Canada
✟16,558.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Why would you NOT follow the letter of the law in this case..and you would in others?I think the point is its NOT about Christianity unless you dont think Christians should EVER go by the letter of the law..ANY law..

Why would in THIS case there be an exception to the law?What makes this situation different..

Dallas

So seriously, if you are stopped by a traffic cop for speeding and he lets you off with a warning do you actually say "No, please arrest me I broke the law?" because properly you need to be written up and fined to the maximum penalty.

If you in a moment of anger shove your husband that is assault. Should he call the police and have you arrested?
 
Upvote 0
Apr 15, 2009
6,988
385
Canada
✟16,558.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Great, not sure I challenged faiths thoughtfulness, I just think she is wrong about this, that it is not the tone of disrespect that is the problem here.

I do not think they have a draconian respect for the law at all. I dont think thats the motive whatsoever. The law, in THIS case, happens to coincide with what they want. if it didnt, it wouldnt be the issue on this thread.

At the very least they are pretending to, and frankly they will continue to. Draconian in the sense that use of the law is for the purpose of gaining power.
 
Upvote 0

Conservativation

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
11,163
416
✟13,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Dallas asked:

Why would in THIS case there be an exception to the law?What makes this situation different..


Actually, thats part of the conversation McS. was wanting to have? If this question was being asked in earnest, there could even BE a conversation.
 
Upvote 0

Conservativation

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
11,163
416
✟13,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
At the very least they are pretending to, and frankly they will continue to. Draconian in the sense that use of the law is for the purpose of gaining power.

Pretending, kind of, I think its just handy....it presents itself as some kind of universal 'who can argue with it" tool in this matter. When, all you wanted really to do was DISCUSS the handling. If blind literal adherence to the law is what we need, then that negates a goodly portion of feminist claims in general, because many of them are exactly adhering to the law, and I guess we can just say, well, thats the law.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JaneFW

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2005
8,058
752
61
IRL
✟11,369.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So seriously, if you are stopped by a traffic cop for speeding and he lets you off with a warning do you actually say "No, please arrest me I broke the law?" because properly you need to be written up and fined to the maximum penalty.

If you in a moment of anger shove your husband that is assault. Should he call the police and have you arrested?

How about someone drives into your car this evening and says that he only answers to God so he doesn't have to wait for the cops, or give you his insurance information, and you can pay for your own damages. It wouldn't work, would it? You would be pretty hacked off because that guy committed a criminal offence and now is saying he doesn't have to deal with the consequences.
 
Upvote 0

Created2Write

His Pink Princess
Mar 12, 2010
4,679
290
Oregon
✟13,703.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How about someone drives into your car this evening and says that he only answers to God so he doesn't have to wait for the cops, or give you his insurance information, and you can pay for your own damages. It wouldn't work, would it? You would be pretty hacked off because that guy committed a criminal offence and now is saying he doesn't have to deal with the consequences.

The POINT hasn't been that there shouldn't be consequences, the POINT has been that they were KIDS, and as Christians, we should be more understanding of that fact. Their intent, as they even said themselves, wasn't to hurt the girls. They aren't criminals, they are KIDS, and shouldn't have to be punished as though they were criminals. Did you see the examples I gave in my post about the kid who shoplifted, and my husband? By your way of thinking, with the law being the law and it is final, that kid could have gone to prison, and my husband would have gone to jail for 5 years, wouldn't even have finished HS. Would be a nobody, and for something that was a complete and utter mistake. Just like this was, a mistake.

Punish the boys, yes. Suspend them, expel them, send them to counciling. But don't expect them to behave like adults, when they're just kids. Maybe their parents teach them right from wrong, maybe they don't. If not, then it's not entirely the kids fault. And no, kids don't naturally "just know" when something is right or wrong, especially if their parents let them watch those kids of movies. And, if they let them watch those movies they should say, "That's not appropriate or acceptable. You will get in trouble if you do that to anyone." They're KIDS and kids are highly influenceable, and unless taught correctly, not as smart as adults.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FaithPrevails
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Apr 15, 2009
6,988
385
Canada
✟16,558.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
How about someone drives into your car this evening and says that he only answers to God so he doesn't have to wait for the cops, or give you his insurance information, and you can pay for your own damages. It wouldn't work, would it? You would be pretty hacked off because that guy committed a criminal offence and now is saying he doesn't have to deal with the consequences.

That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about are OUR actions. I'm talking about OUR mercy.

You give me render unto Caesar, I give you the unjust steward. But I'm going to be really blunt here: don't call yourself a Christian if discussing mercy and forgiveness are not even on the table. Don't pretend that you love Christ if you can't contemplate anything other than handcuffing, arrest and criminal charges for two boys who were misguided and wrong but could have been taught another way. Seriously, how can you even think of saying that you are a person of faith if considering a more merciful way of behaving might have worked is unthinkable to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Created2Write
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.