• Grant

    Testing your comment system as requested.

    • Chris

      Thanks. !! spam blocked since request, but you got through.

  • http://terrybreathinggrace.wordpress.com Elspeth

    Testing, Chris.

    And good post, too.

  • http://www.thecottagechild.blogspot.com saintvelvet

    I like this very much, and testing, 1-2-3….

    without qualifications (such as feminism, conservatism, or socialism

    Yes, this. It’s interesting how quickly we (I) stand on and fall back on our own personal religion, kind a first line defense, rather than Truth – I don’t totally understand the mechanism, sometimes it’s “I’ll get around to it eventually”, and sometimes it’s “I shouldn’t have to bring out the big guns for this round” if that makes sense – it’s pretty silly. I think there’s still some reluctance to be perceived as too Jesus-y, so we kind of wallow around in logic or ego or the socio-political whatever we’re vested in for a while ’til we warm up a bit. The filters are problematic.

    • Chris

      To give you all an idea, there are 167 comments in the spam blocked thing now. I really don’t want captchas but I don’t want spam. I hope the current system works OK.

  • http://christianmeetsworld.com Jason

    Wow, awesome post. I found your site from over at Dalrock. I’ll have to add it to my list of daily reading :)

    Thanks for taking a stand. I looked around recently at Church and realized just how much divorce and wreckage was floating in the congregation :( Now of the wrecking spouses who up and left were present, but there was a lot of pain and damage left behind.

    Jason

  • Brent

    ” A judge would find her motive for divorce completely acceptable?”

    Obviously the person who wrote this has never been through a divorce proceeding. Don’t tat person realized the entire reason feminists successfully instituted no-fault divorce is so that a judge is not legally allowed to ask any questions on the motive for divorce? She very well could be divorcing him only for cash and prizes. The judge still wouldn’t have discretion to refuse to grant the divorce unless some kind of premeditated fraud could be proven. The usual stated reason on the paper work of “irreconcilable differences” (female legal-ese for, “he doesn’t give me the tingles like the guy at work”) is so sufficiently vague as to not be questionable.

  • Butterfly Flower

    Obviously the person who wrote this has never been through a divorce proceeding.

    Nope. My family [immediate & extended] is rather boring. I’ve never personally experienced a divorce. Unless soap opera plotlines count. Ian and Jane on EastEnders was a drama-filled divorce proceeding. Jane tried to take Ian to the cleaners [after she cheated on him...], but it turned out, Ian wasn’t as wealthy as she originally thought.

    She very well could be divorcing him only for cash and prizes. The judge still wouldn’t have discretion to refuse to grant the divorce unless some kind of premeditated fraud could be proven.

    Back to my original question: how is that not considered crazy? Pretending to love a man, so you can divorce him after you get married and steal his money – how is that not sociopathic? Feigning love – such a complex premeditated lie. It’s more than just fraud, it’s evil.

    • Chris

      BF.

      It is crazy.

      But it is legal.

      And most of our society have forgotten that things can be legal that are not moral. (Abortion, casinos… do I need to continue the list)?

  • Butterfly Flower

    It is crazy.

    But it is legal.

    And most of our society have forgotten that things can be legal that are not moral. (Abortion, casinos… do I need to continue the list)?

    Concerning morality: do these situations continue to happen because of western society’s “women are more moral than men…” meme? [bleh, that last sentence was a tongue twister] In American society, especially – women are never called out on anything . Promiscuous girls are just being taken advantage of by bad, sinful men. [Hence, where the false-rape allegations come into play. A pure moral woman is incapable of consenting to sex; a man must have manipulated her into participating in said act...] This attitude permeates within American Christianity. I was actually taught it my Catholic school’s equivalent of sex-ed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Hamilton.Gary Gary

    I am working on very similar issues in Nebraska.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Hamilton.Gary Gary

    I am working on similar issues in Nebraska.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.singer.549 Michael Singer

    Great post and insight – many thanks !