AFTER he groped her up. I was referring to the fact that she said NO sex. He was raring to go, like a 10th grade school boy.



Unless he has either a crystal ball, or divine knowledge of her intentions, your point here is irrelevant.  And as long as they are BOTH alive, there is ALWAYS chance for reconciliation. No matter how slim it appears to those of us with imperfect knowledge.



I thought it was already established that HE (not me) was into lace panties. [}:D]

...I guess the best advice is:

Never participate in the destruction of someone's marraige, unless you're willing to pick up that ball and run with it.

(Then again, some people are just lookin' for some kicks, and can't control themselves, or plain, don't care.)

Oh?  And she was some shrinking violet?  She could have set the tone from the first kiss.  You really confuse me sometimes, garandman.  I have seen you call women whores on this forum and now you are vigorously defending a married, albeit separated, woman who initiated sleeping in another man's bed.  



Actually, my point may be VERY relevant.  And I would hope that she HAD divorced that man in her heart because, if she hadn't, then she has already committed adultery.  

Oh... and just because you say the sky is green doesn't make it so.  




I think I am safe in saying that I don't think he has the market cornered.... [:p]

MMagnum -

Here's my deal-

Just like I expect more from gun owners, I expect more from men. I expect them to act like, well....MEN.

Prostitution essentially ENDS TOMORROW if men will embrace their moral responsibility.

So does single parent families, bastard children, rape, physical abuse, poverty of single moms, and a long list of other "social ills."

"Tolerance" of his type of behaviour only feeds the beast that creates these social ills.

That's hard for ANYONE to hear, but the truth of it is undeniable.

[img]http://www.netsnapshot.com/users/1340/images/PA4q0cCoBQIAAA6G6Nc_1340_29.pjpeg[/img]
[b]" OK, here's an opinion as to what you should do....

You are "almost" a home wrecker, and you "almost" not only F'ed her, but F'ed her children, whose best possible situation is to have their REAL dad back in their lives.

OK, here's the advice - grow a set of morals, or get ready for the SAME @&%! to fly in your face one day."[/b]

[I]Whew![/I]  I am just in tears after reading that.  And here I thought I had a basic grasp on what was humorous, but your post - the sarcasm, the passive/aggressiveness, the [b] pure venom [/b]…  I am literally afraid to ever try and post anything here again.  [I][b][red]Thank you Master![/red][/b][/I]

garandman, I tend to agree with you, though maybe not to such a level. I'm kinda bothered that I don't see either of them as really thinking of the long term ramifications of 'a little nookie'. What with the two kids, the non-finalized divorce. Then it hit me.....

You're preaching to a group of libertarian minded people on what they would classify a victimless "crime".

There was a time when I was known to drink whiskey, get into fights, and chase women.
"Men" act THAT way, too.
I never trusted a Marine who wasn't capable of a little Hell-raising.

Interesting... because I always approach it from the opposite angle... that women are the "gatekeepers" and can easily set the tone for any relationship by establishing what she will and will not accept as appropriate behaviour.  

Perhaps this is because we are of opposite genders and expect more from the same sex because we know more is possible.  

Oh, no doubt theres PLENTY of blame to spread around. But comparatively, SHE had teh greater morals. The ONLY reason they didn't "do the deed" is cuz SHE said no. THTA was my only point, and perhaps NOT a point worth making. Suffice it to say I'm encouraged by YOUR desire to require moral actions on her side. I guess I'm doing the same on HIS side. And as stated above, I expect GREATER morals from men than I do from women, simply becasue the Bible CLEARLY indicates that God created women to be MORE given to desire and passion than God created men to be. And the world is a BETTER place since God designed things that way.



There's a few good biblical angles you are actually making reference to here, so that's great.

But you are missing the most important one - God hates divorce. (See the book of Malachi I beleive)  So NEVER, in any instance, is it acceptable for him to give her a shove toward divorce.

This is a good discussion. Please forgive my passion for the sublect, which may make me WRONGLY send some angst toward you.

Agreed God dislikes divorce.  But also understand that the Bible was written in different times.  The life expectancy was greatly reduced.  And God also asked a lot of other things of his people that are no longer praticed.  

Case in point, if this woman's husband had died, according to the Bible her deceased husband's brother would be required to marry her.  Don't see much of THAT going on anymore unless it is on Jerry Springer and I doubt that their motivation is Bible-based. [;D]

I'm not saying that marriage or divorce should be taken lightly.  I am saying that you can't be stringent in apply certain areas of the Bible while casting aside others.  When was the last time you made a burnt offering?



There's been PLENTY of "angst" between us over the years... forgiveness is long past being required. [;)]

Hey Dolomite -

If you can get that "church lady" pic down to the size where it cap appear with each of my posts under my post count, I'b be willing to try and figger out the technical doo-dads to put it in my profile.

[:D]

God's standards of right and wrong are generated by His charachter, which, Biblically, NEVER changes.

Life expectancy has actually gone up since Bible times. Just look at George Burns. Is that old fossil still alive?? [}:D]

yes, customs change, but God's standards (including hating divorce) do not.



That was a provision to make sure there were descendants for teh dead husband. She HAS two children, so it would be unncessary to marry the brother. Unless like you say its a Springer episode during ratings week.  [}:D]





The 'burnt offerring "thing was reapealed at the resurrection. God's ceremonial las, as delivered to the Jews, was rescinded by God, so we need not follow those ceremonies any longer.

God's moral standards will NEVER be rescinded. The prohibition against divorce is included in that. Both my mom and sister were divorced, so I'm NOT trying to throw stones here, just make truthful statements from Scripture.



Actually, it only SEEMS like years. I have a way of making people THINK its been longer than it has. Its my charming personality and sweet disposition. [:D]

Sounds like my wife..."no sex!"

If she said "NO SEX", then you did good.  "NO SEX" should mean "NO SEX".  If you were to ignore her stated words, and try to have sex anyway, you would open yourself up to a charge of rape.

Besides, why would you want to sleep with anyone in that state of confusion?  Complete consent is a beautiful thing, and it's what you are entitled to.

Thats why you didnt get a winnie wash for your troubles!
c-rock

That is without a doubt the funniest post I've seen to date!!!!!
[:D]

[i]sniff...  sniff...[/i]  I smell a T-Shirt deal in the near futre!

Actually, a "Carpe Poon" T-Shirt would make for the second funniest T-Shirt I've ever seen.  The funniest T-Shirt I've ever seen of course was the one that read:

[img]http://www.netsnapshot.com/users/1340/images/PA5nPsCoBQIAAAdT3xg_1340_30.pjpeg[/img]

What about this one?  Kinda goes with the story [:D]

[img]http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a18/a18.gif[/img]

Edited cause the pic was too small.

oh, and i suppose she wasn't rarin' to go????  so it's  okay for her to behave like a hussy because HE groped her FIRST????  what, pray tell, did she have in mind by inviting herself into HIS bed, wearing nothing but a t-shirt and LACE panties????????????  are you giving her the benefit of the doubt (and why?) or are you just blind to HER culpability in this instance?



a chance in hell perhaps.  i'd like you to tell that to my mother who divorced my father when i was 2 y/o because he beat her and didn't want it to happen to me.  now where is that CHANCE for reconciliation that you were talking about????  

am i the only one appalled at HER actionsn in this scenario??????  as a woman it disgust me to see such behavior in another woman.  it's demeaning.  she has little respect for herself.  and that's not a put-down either.  but a woman who truly respected herself wouldn't put herself in a such a situation.  and absolutely no offense meant here as i certainly do not think this is the case, but how was she to know that our esteemed member wouldn't take advantage of the situation and ignore her "no sex" stipulation?  she didn't.  and for that, she was downright STUPID for what she did.

i can understand her need for some love and attention as MM alluded to.  we've all been there before.  but we (women) only end up huritng ourselves when we seek that love and attention in ways other than truly caring, meaningful relationships.  and you can't discern that a relationship is such after one date at a party, even if it's with a guy you've known in high school.

bottom line:  IMO (and that's a big caveat here) neither party handled it as well as it could have been handled.  she should have gone home.  and he should have sent her home, or at the very least, assuming he didn't want her out late driving, adamant about her staying ON THE COUCH!!!!!!

anything less is, when you get right down to it, disrectful to both parties.

flame proof suit on.

Re-read my # 3733. And my experience is that women are STUPID in these situations. Case in point - They return to men who beat them near half to death. She probably DID naievely think that was a perfectly acceptable thing to do, while his only thpought was to be flinging them to the floor. Like I said, STUPID. And YES, both of them.





If you are trying to draw parallels between THIS situation, and your family situation, you are assuming facts NOT in evidence re: this situation.  



No, I would say MMagnum agrees with you 107%. But as she and I figgered out earlier, I, as a male, tend to put a greater duty on the male. She (and apparently you) tend to put the greater duty on the female. Either way, thats great. Lets ALL embrace MORE personal responsibility for our actions.



No disagreement there. But HE is here, in this forum, asking for opinions, and SHE is not. So I took a target of opportunity.

Ditto what brouhaha said.

God Bless Texas

yes, i posted before it got through all the others.  my mistake.




and your statement that there is ALWAYS a chance is not making the same assumption(s)???????  that was exactly my point.  i was only using my personal situation as an example of how wrong your statement really was.  you can no more make that statement than i can say that spousal abuse is at the root of her divorce.



not a greater duty on the female, but an equal duty to behave in a moral manner that will disrespect neither party, endanger no one, and leave no one feeling hurt or injured.  they both have equal obligations to behave in the same manner.  he does not have a greater duty than she.  and she does not have a greater duty than he.  i was just concerned at the lack of attention given to her behavior, that is all.




granted.  but both are equally culpable in what happened that night and i think that both parties' actions should be scrutinized, not just his.  but i see your standpoint.

[:)]

When you've seen how God can change a life, turning a rotten, physically abusive addict into a responsible caring committed father and husband, i'd say YES, there is ALWAYS a chance.

And as it relates to THIS case, I'd say ANY male that interferes in another husband / wife scenario, WHILE both parties are still living, is a DIRTBAG.

But then, I'm just an opinionated old fool  [BD]

and i'm just an opinionated young woman.

but the fact remains that you accuse me of assuming facts not in evidence, while you do the same.  and then ignore that issue while claiming that God's greatness validates your assumptions.  i'm not arguing your statements about God's greatness and His abilities to work miracles.  as true as it is, YOU were still making assumptions with facts not in evidence about there always being a chance at reconciliation, were you not?

and what gives you the right to presume that i have not seen the Hand of God work miracles on a wife-beater (or any other person for that matter)?????  this is my father we're talking about after all.

finally, no matter the effect of God's love in a man's life, it does not mean the woman is going to take him back.  my father could become the next saint, and my mother would still refuse to join him again in holy matrimony.

i don't mind if you want to point out some discrepancies in my logic, or if you want to point out some behavior that i'd be better off not displaying.  but please have the courtesy to be innocent of that which you accuse me of before pointing your finger.  [:)]

My point and reading of your post was ONLY this and nothing more -

Your family situation introduced the element of physical abuse. THIS SITUATION, to my reading, DOES NOT have this element. If i missed the abuse in this situation, please correct me.





The element of physical abuse changes the whole discussion. I am willing to support the idea of separation / divorce from a physically abusive male, as long as the female realizes she is then prohibited from remarrying. In this way, the sanctity of marriage will be preserved, Gods desires are honored, and the female is safe from the abuser.

When i said "facts not in evidence" it was intended more as an observation, than as an accusation. Please forgive if my choice of words implied something more than that.

did i mention i was also ornery????  does this mean, then, that there is not ALWAYS a chance at reconciliation????  [:D]



why is it that the female (assuming she's the abused) is prevented from remarrying?  he broke the sanctity of marriage by abusing her in the first place.  she did nothing wrong.  is the sanctity of marriage greater than the sanctity of her life, such that she must sacrifice one in order to keep the other?  



i know what you meant, and i was NOT making a parellel between my family situation and that which was discussed in the post.  i was only attempting to show you that your assumption was grossly out of line.  and also assumed facts not in evidence.  i was not applying my family's situation to the woman's situation.  i was applying your statement to my family's situation in an attempt to show that it was erroneous.

no hard feelings.  

Sin almost always bears consequences for the innocent. Murder, rape, theft. Innocent people ROUTINELY suffer for  the misdeeds of others. Not fair? Who said life was gonna be "fair?" Not God. God hates divorce, and DOES NOT provide a list of "Yes, but(s)..."

Also, we routinely sacrifice LOTS of other things for the sanctity of life. We make LOTS of sacrifices for doing what is right. And besides, not getting remarried is NOT the end of her life. She's NOT sacrificing her life by not getting remarried. You are being a tad over dramatic, dontcha thing???

God will hold the abusive husband accountable, but He does NOT allow for situational ethics. what's right is ALWAYS right, and what's wrong is ALWAYS wrong.





Then I mis-read that part of your post.

i did not say that not remarrying was sacrificing her life.  i said that observing the sanctity of marriage, by not divorcing 'cuz we all know God hates divorce, she may sacrifice her life.

on the flip-side, by observing the sanctity of her life in divorcing the abusive spouse, she is tromping all over the sanctity of marriage.

no melodramatics from moi!

i'm sorry, but the fact that innocents routinely bear the consequences for the misdeeds of others is NOT justification for it.  the truthfulness of something does not make it right (morally speaking, nor does it justify it or excuse it.  if you want to explain to me why the woman suffers at the expense of another's actions, please tell me something different than "because we all must sometime suffer at the expense of another's actions."  i ALREADY know that.  i wanna know why you think that it's okay in this case for the woman to be forced to live single because someone else had callous disregard for the sanctity of marriage.

but that brings up another question.  if HE (generically speaking now), the abuser, divorces the woman, is she still prohibited from remarrying?  

I think you're going beyond the point that Jesus and the Apostle Paul were trying to make when you talk about them prohibiting remarriage after divorce.  (I'm assuming you're getting that from the gospels and/or Paul's letter to the church at Corinth.)  They were laying out the principle that marriage is to be defended at all costs.  They were not, however, laying down a set of rules.  Jewish law, and the way God operates, for that matter, is full of exceptions, which aren't always stated up front.  The Bible is full of such examples, Jesus being one of the prime violators of laws that "had no exceptions" because he understood what the laws were really intended to do.

I'm not sure how you explain I Corinthians 7 otherwise, which is full of seemingly contradictory rules, unless you realize that they all have the same principle in mind, which is, as you said, the sanctity of marriage.  But even within that context, Paul makes the statement that it is okay to remarry.  



Is that a blanket rule that gives everyone free reign to commit adultery and divorce and remarry as they please?  Of course not.  One needs to understand the principles.

Huh?????



the option of separation WITHOUT remarriage is available, so that she need not risk being killed. NOWHERE in Scripture is a woman commanded to stay with a man that physically beats her. Get teh heck out of there, by all means. But she needs to remain unmarried. If more women went into marriage with this understanding, MAYBE they'd be more selective in their marriage partners, rather than marrying some Cretan just because he is handsome.




what I think is irrelevant. What God says (or more importantly does NOT say ) IS relevant. And God 's Word DOES NOT provide a "Yes, but" for the husbands sin, making it OK for the wife to sin also.



This is sort of addressed in scripture. the Bible says if (and I'm goin from memory now) the husband leaves the wife, to let him leave. But she is to remain unmarried.

"Unmariied" is NOT the same as "divorced." Bad exegesis, there, my friend.


God hates "putting away" (aka divorce) Its a universal rule for ALL TIME. Mainly because of what marriage is intended to illustrate.

Does God stop HATING something simply becasue a few thousand years have passed? hardly. God's standards grow out of His charachter, which is unchanging.

Is is INDEED that simple.

You're talking about this:


and/or this, I think:


Neither of which say quite what you're making them out to say.  The first says that if the [b]wife[/b] leaves the husband, she should either remain unmarried or be reconciled back to him.  The second says that if a believing woman is left by an unbelieving husband, the woman [b]is not bound[/b], in other words, she is free to remarry.  I think you were melding the two in your mind or something.

The whole chapter is here [url]http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=I+corinthians+7[/url] if you want to read it all for yourself.

[Edited to fix the URL]

Actually, those scriptures make my point quite well.

The only portion that requires explanation is "A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace."

this simply means legal separation is OK. The beleiver is NOT required to follow the lout around like some kind of sad puppy dog. It DOES NOT signify divorce is OK. Again, God HATES divorce. He HAS NOT changed His mind about that.

Futher, there are other Scriptures that indicate that if a woman remarries while her husband lives (or man remarries etc) then she is an adulterer.

This is an EASY one folks, but rather far afield from teh original topic. My apologies to the thread author.

Divorce and remarriage = adultery.





And ya wanna know how much God hates adultery??



Now, i beleive the new testament MAY POSSIBLY have mitigated the OT death penalty requirement here, but God's "hates and loves" haven't changed.

In short, adultery and divorce - DON'T do it.

Oh ,and a point I TOO OFTEN forget to make -

God is ready, waiting and willing to forgive and heal, if we will but repent and obey Him.

Mainly by beleiving in His SOn Jesus Christ.

I find a slight difficulty in reconciling these two statements. Why is it that in one case, the new covenant has replaced the old, yet now you bring up again the old covenant.

Does that mean God hate's those with the impertinance to TOUCH (in the common non-sexual sense) a woman who is having her period?
(Leviticus 15:19)

Does that mean that God hates me because I'm wearing a wool/cotton blend shirt? (Leviticus 19:19)

Does that mean that God hates all who get tattoos? (Leviticus 19:28)

Does that mean that God condones slavery? (Leviticus 25: 45-46)

Of course, I do not think that fathoming the will of God is so simple. And I believe that the new covenant has overswept the old. We don't have to accept homosexuality, nor are we called to stone all gays to death, for example.

I also note that there has been a failure to mention the process of annulment, though while only granted for certain things, WOULD allow one to remarry.

Garandman--by "almost" divorced I mean the papers are about to be signed. She moved out early this year and took the kids with her. They are DONE DONE DONE! This info comes not only from her but also from a 3rd party.

If there's one thing I do know about women, it's that the good ones aren't alone for long. I saw a chance and I took it. And as for the home-wrecker comment, I made it clear to her that I know she's in a touchy position--another reason I backed off when I did. We discussed this specifically--what would the aftermath be? I told her straight up I don't want her to be sorry for what we do, and I don't want her to resent me in the end.

And don't worry about the lace panties--I'm really more of a thong-man[;)]

THAT LAST COMMENT WAS HUMOR AND HAS NO BASIS IN FACT!!!

Dolomite, you are killing me man...



There's some history though...we were pretty good friends in high school, though we never clicked it up a notch. We lost touch after that, but got back in touch this summer. Lots of email back and forth. We got together a couple months ago for dinner and some drinks. It was like picking up where we left off.

As for the rest of your comments, I won't deny it could have been handled better on my part or hers. That is why I posted.

There was a question of abuse in her marriage. I asked her about this and she said there was one, and it was not major. The divorce had more to do with 2 young people getting married because "it seemed like the right thing to do," instead of 2 people being really compatible with each other. At this point I can't say that we are or are not totally compatible, but as a red-blooded young man I am excited about the prospects.

Anyway, I'm glad Garandman/ARlady/BostonTeaParty/et al got some interesting conversation out of this, even if I was getting beat up in the process. I asked for it.

But today the sun is shining a little brighter and the birds singing a little louder. The flowers got sent and the phone rang earlier and the voice on the other end was receptive. We are going to have an excellent New Year's Eve. [:D]

heavily-armed,

i want to state right now and for the record that i in no way meant to imply that you were a potential rapist.  what i was implying was that she could not know, undeniably, that you were not.  and therefore, she placed herself in a potentially dangerous position.  

and that abuse comment was brought up solely for the purpose of applying garandman's "ALWAYS a chance" comment to a situation in which i know no chance exists.  i was in no way, shape, or form implying that there was any abuse in the relationship of the woman you mentioned and her soon-to-be ex-husband.

i wish you the best of luck and hope that things work out for the best for all parties involved.  and have a happy new year's.  

heavily_armed,  I just love talking smack that's all.  Hang in there Brother, you did the right thing and you know it.  I'm sure everything is going to work out fine because good things happen to AR15 owners, operators, and enthusiasts!