I'm sorry that young woman got HPV, I'm sorry she (and many others) are unaware of the risks. Although, as Jill points out, the risk of getting cancer from HPV is still very very slight. So, let's hope she's ok.

I do not agree that four sexual partners for a 24 year old woman is out of line. That is relatively few. Nothing wrong with that at all.

"the state or custom of being married to one person at a time." It now apparently means to have "relatively few partners," one at a time. "

Right. the only difference between those two is that a committed relationship doesnt always = marriage. Does that piece of paper really make a difference in terms of committment? Plenty of married couples cheat on each other, but would you still call them monogamous just because they're married? Or say that a long term committed relationship is NOT monogamous just because they don't have a piece of paper saying they're legally bound?

So I'm not in a monogamous relationship just because I'm not married?

Or what about my uncle and his girlfriend who have been together for 30 years and haven't gotten married because they think the institution is a bunch of bullshit? Are they also not in a monogamous relationship?

I'm reminded of the recent study suggesting the rates of premarital sex has been fairly stable for the past few generations. I certainly think that having more sexual partners has been normalized by society, however I'm not sure if people's practices have really changed, or if it's just more acceptable to talk about it.

Do you really need a 'piece of paper' to prove monogamy? of course not, as Amanda pointed out many married people cheat. I think it's more a matter of the heart, not a matter of the law. You don't need marriage to be monogamous, but I think Jill still has a point---

There is some theoretical point where the term monogamy becomes meaningless, at least in my eyes. For instance, what if someone were to have one night stands with someone new every single night, saying they are "monogamous" for that night with that new person. That's quite the extreme, and probably most people would say 'no, that's not being monogamous.' (HOWEVER, I would not judge or look down on someone for making those choices, just would think she was incorrect if she thought it was monogamy). On the other end of the extreme, we have couples who lose their virginity to each other and never cheat on each other, remaining together until death (with or without a marriage license). This extreme is clearly monogamy. So as we move farther away from each extreme and closer to the middle, where is the line between monogamy and not monogamy? I don't know. So I think Jill has a point, it's just that probably many dissenters would disagree with her on where the line is drawn.

Jill says:

"Monogamy used to mean, "the state or custom of being married to one person at a time." It now apparently means to have "relatively few partners," one at a time."

No, that is not what it means. But if you look at dicitionaries nowadays, apart from 'being married to one person at a time' you also find the definition of 'or being in a relationship/union with one partner at the time'.

The Greek had different words for different sorts of relationship between men and women. The relationship described with the word -gamos (marriage/wedding ceremony) is closest to what nowadays monogamous relationships, whether married or unmarried, look like. Unless you want to stick to the literal translation of the word gamos and you want to argue all unmarried couples consist of a man and his concubine ( paid or unpaid), which were the only other relationships the Greek knew of, you'd have to allow for the translation of marriage into union or relationship. In essence, it means one partner at the time, it simply describes the state of being and that's all there is to it, really.

She should have used protection and get her partners checked before having an intimate relationship with them. That is all she can blame herself for.

"She should have used protection and get her partners checked before having an intimate relationship with them. That is all she can blame herself for."

There is no protection for HPV (even the new vaccine is not 100% effective against all cervical cancer strains), other than remaining chaste. Condoms don't offer protection, because it is also spread by skin-skin contact; you don't need to have intercourse. Even if a new partner were checked (do drs. even check males for HPV? I don't know.), it is still possible for him to be with someone else after the test, depending on what type of guy he is (i.e. not monoganous).

Jill, the definition of monogamy is having sex with one partner at a time. You have no reason to believe this woman was having sex with more than one man at a time; therefore you have no reason to poke fun at her claiming to be monogamous.

EE, yes doctors check males for HPV. Why wouldnt they? Guys can be affected by it just like their partners. And if HPV is spread thru skin-to-skin contact, "being chaste" isnt going to protect you. What if you shake hands with an infected person?

Sammie, Sammie, Sammie. Read my post. I did not accuse the woman of having sex with more than one man at a time. I'd say, rather, she's a serial monogamist.

Marriage is not just a piece of paper. If that's all you think it is, it's no wonder people so easily get divorced.

It's a blood covenant (that's the reason God gave women a hymen) made to God by two people that become one flesh. The covenant is that you will be faithful and stay together forever and model the relationship between Christ and His church here on earth. The wife is to submit to a loving husband who faithfully follows Christ and is willing to give himself up for his wife and I don't mean she is to be a door mat. I will repeat it again...."the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it". To break that covenant is to break covenant with God Himself. Not a very wise thing to do.

Joe,

She should have used protection and get her partners checked before having an intimate relationship with them. That is all she can blame herself for.

You make having "sexual partners" sound like looking for a good piece of meat, or a nice pair of shoes.

Cold and clinical.

Is this what relationships have come to? Checking out your partner and protecting yourself against them? Creepy.
MK

Hisman...what about women whose hymens break from say, horse riding or athletic activity? Does that ruin the blood covenant....? 'Cause I've been a horse rider for years. And if it's such a blood covenant, then why is it that only women bleed? I would think that a blood covenant would cover both of the people in it. Seems like a pretty uneven deal to me.

Alyssa,

While I agree with HisMans premise, I could see why you might think he sounds a little archaic.

I'm sure somewhere, someone else has written this better, but let me try to throw my two cents in...(Surprise, surprise)

Earlier, I talked about the difference between a contract and a covenant. Contracts can work. I'm not saying that they can't. Many people have been "married" under a contract. But bear with me.

I'm not asking you to buy into this theory. Nor am I asking it to be made civil law. This is not the same as abortion. Abortion needs to be stopped legally because it is infringing on the rights of another human being, and as such should be unlawful.

Marriage is more in the realm of the heart and spirit. I can't tell you that the Christian/Catholic way of approaching marriage is the way it should be by law. I can only tell you that I believe it is the best way to approach it.

When a couple (in the church) marries, they are entering into a sacrament. Sacraments are serious. I am going to speak of the Catholic interpretation, first because that is the interpretation I know, and second, because not all protestant faiths view marriage as a sacrament. A sacrament is an outward sign of one's faith. A visible expression. So when we marry we are making a covenenant with each other and God.

When we say obey, we don't mean, "let him beat you", "Only his opinion matters", "He makes all the decisions", "you're only a disinterested party".

We mean, that like in any functioning enterprise, there should be an appointed "head". Not tyrant, not dictator, but head. This is how it works in my home. Now, can you just see me rolling over and saying "yes dear, whatever you say dear"...yeah, right. Cuz, I'm not opinionated at all!

But when it comes to major decisions...well, take my son Kevin. When we moved, we left an affulent suburb of Chicago that offered a top public high school. And of course, public high schools are free. This is a good thing when you are looking at 6 kids eventually entering the school system.

Before the decision to move was made, my husband and I spent hours, actually weeks and days, discussing where we wanted to live.

He wanted to live in the same town we were in. I wanted to move back to Chicago and a simpler life style. He argued that we couldn't afford Catholic schools. (The public school that would be in the district where I wanted to move left much to be desired) I argued that from a spritual standpoint, we couldn't NOT afford Catholic schools. An amazing house came up in Edison Park, just 2 miles from our old home. It was everything he wanted in a house. 5 bedrooms, multiple bathrooms, around the corner from the park, eat-in kitchen...BUT, it meant paying for a Catholic school.

What could I do? He was the head of the household. So...I pled my case. Laid out all the arguments. Gave the pros and cons. Then sat back and told him, that as the head of the household he should make the final decision and I would abide by whatever he decided. This meant no "I told you so's" if it didn't work out.

punchline: Kevin goes to Notre Dame, and I now live in Edison Park.

I can tell you that if I had stamped my foot and "fought" for my "rights", I would still be living in Park Ridge and we very well might not be speaking to each other.

The relationship I have with God is the same. I tell him what I want, He listens, I "obey" and 9 times out of 10 he surpasses my wildest dreams in fulfilling my desires.

moral: obedience does not mean weakness. It means wisdom and understanding that I don't know everything. It means freedom. I don't have to take any of the blame if things don' go well. (This puts a great burden on my husband, who, in living up to his part of the bargain, must accept the responsibility that goes with making the decisions.) I am NOT a patsy. I am NOT weak. I am NOT a prisoner. I AM a partner, a FULL partner, in a covenant, where both my husband and I have given ourselves to each other completely. Nothing held back. After 26 years, I can honestly say that I'm crazier about him now than ever. (some would argue that I'm just crazier).

Okay, tired now.
MK

"We mean, that like in any functioning enterprise, there should be an appointed "head"."

Ha, my mom's the head of the house hold in my house. When she wanted to move, we moved. But her and my dad agreed on the house completely.

MK claims:

"You make having "sexual partners" sound like looking for a good piece of meat, or a nice pair of shoes."

What makes you think that? Did I say she should only pick sexual partners whose bank statements she saw and whose DNA has been checked for potential flaws? Nope.

"Cold and clinical."

Nope again. Rather, it is responsible and self-preservation.

"Is this what relationships have come to? Checking out your partner and protecting yourself against them? Creepy."

Yes. Checking out your partner is very important. You might be a virgin but he might not be. No point in contracting a fertility- or life-threatening disease just so he won't be upset over the idea of getting an STD test.

Protecting myself against him? Nope, rather the diseases he might carry without his knowledge. Even if he had only one partner before me, and she was a virgin, she could have contracted certain STDs without intercourse. As EE rightly points out.

It really is not a big deal. On my side of the pond, men appreciate women who don't just jump into a relationship without consideration.

"HisMan" - you are the first person in history to give me the creeps through the internet.

I literally shudder at the idea that someone could still believe these things.

The hymen is a very thin piece of skin that is usually broken (and most often, without a trace of blood) long before a female has sex, or any sexual activity for that matter. I'm sure even Jill, pro life or not, as a nurse, could tell you that the hymen has nothing to do with a "blood covenant" or marriage. The concept of the hymen as an indicator of virginity or purity is an ignorance that has resulted in thousands of women being abused or even killed when there is not a spot of blood on a sheet after the first sexual intercourse.

Love, devotion, monogamy, and committment, with or without a relationship with God is more than a piece of paper - of course... but marriage is literally a legal document - a piece of paper. Relating it in any way to a woman's anatomy is frighteningly mysoginistic and archaic.

"It's a blood covenant(that's the reason God gave women a hymen) made to God by two people that become one flesh."

People really still believe this? No wonder women are still killed in some countries for not bleeding after their first sexual encounter. How ignorant and sad.

"It's a blood covenant (that's the reason God gave women a hymen)"

Damn, my hymen broke from years of horseback riding and there was no blood. Haha, I lost my virginity to a horse. :-P

Alyssa and Danielle - me three! I rode for years, long before I was even thinking about boys and sex!

But based on "HisMan" 's theory, not only did we all lose our virginity to horses, we're married to them as well.

I dont see what the big deal is about monogamy. People know how to protect themselves, and they know how to choose partners wisely. Its not anybody's business what goes on in other people's bedrooms.

Alyssa, Danielle, Amanda -- me four!

Amanda, Joy, Danielle, Samantha, Ashlee, and Stephanie:

Maybe I didn't do a good job at explaining why marriage isn't just a piece of paper. I will again try at length at the risk of sounding, oooooooooooooh, "archaic".

And MK, please don't patronize me. I'm quite capable of explaining myself without caving to others who simply don't have any knowledge of God and are like winds without sails blowing to and fro by every wind of doctrine.

Blood is important to God. It carries the life force of a human being. Without the sheding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins. If we lose too much blood we die. If we had diseased blood we would have lessened or no immunity to disease, etc., etc. Blood is important.

Jesus shed His innocent blood on the cross for the forgiveness of sins of mankind. God made a covenant to all mankind that Jesus' blood would wash away our sins. God uses teh shedding of blood as a sign of His covenant to man. And, He will keep His word.

It was stated in a previous post that marriage was just a piece of paper. I was refuting this glib view of marriage and attributing our very high divorce and unborn child murder rates to our truly uneducated, so-called "enlightened" GenX's, etc. lack of understanding as to what marriage is, a symbol of God's covenant love for mankind. I was trying to help everyone understand the significance of blood as a sign of a covenant between God and man. Marriage is important to God as it is the earthly symbol of Christ's relationship to His bride, the Church.

In the Old Testament, marriages were arranged between fathers. A pledge was given by the father of the bride to the father of the groom that the bride was a virgin or the groom had a right to rescind the marriage. A great deal of money and possessions was usually involved since this was the way parents planned for the survival of their children long after they, the parents, passed on.

Sex points to the blood covenant of marriage. In the traditional Orthodox Jewish culture, during the wedding reception the bride and the groom went into a tent immediately after they exchanged their vows to consumante their marriage physically. Both fathers stood at the crack of the tent listening in. How romantic!

The wedding bed was covered with special sheets that had a high thred count and never been slept on before. As soon as the couple was finished, the fathers burst in together to check the sheets for blood spots or "the tokens of virginity". Deal or no deal?

When a women's hymen is broken, there's an issue of blood. It may be microscopic in some cases, but usually, there is a little more than that. Medical science, in all its biological wisdom, has not been able to find any physiological purpose for that issue of blood. And perhaps it won't; because the tokens of virginity are God's symbolism of the blood covenant of marriage.

God intended that marriage to occur in a virgin state; there's no medical reason for the issue of blood except that is is a blood covenant. A blood covenant is the highest form a of agreement between God and man, always brought forth from the heart of God and ascribed to by man through the shedding of blood.

You're not married when the minister pronounces you man and wife; you're not married when the Justice of the Peace signs your marriage license; in God's eyes you're married when the two become one flesh after having exchanged vows in the company of witnesses. That's why during ancient Hebrew weddings the parents of the bride and the groom held a prayer shawl over the couple as they exchaged vows. This gesture said, "We as their fathers and mothers are covenanting to cover them in prayer."

How much better would the marriages of America fare if the parents on each side vowed at the wedding ceremony to cover the marriage of their childen in prayer? We need to understand this notion of covering; God is very serious about it.

When a woman loses her virginity at the consumation of marriage, it's God symbol that she has been righteously uncovered by her husband. In fact, in some languages the sheaf of a women's hymen is called a cover. It covers the place of birth and it prevents the seed from entering before the proper time.

Because of the seriousness and gravity of this custom in those days, women probably took better care of their hymens, I guess in direct contradiction to what's done today as stated by the rather glib and unshameful description of events in which Amanda, Joy, Danielle, Samantha, Ashlee, and Stephanie explained how they broke theirs. Wow, I can see them turning pale white when they face the thone of Christ to give an account of their indiscretion. But that's not the point.

In summary, marriage is not just a piece of paper. In fact, it's that very notion that causes so many abortions and hence murders of innocent children. If today's modern couples understood the seriousness of marriage and specifically saw marriage as God sees it, a blood covenant, people would value the sacredness of their sexuality and value of their virginity as something to be kept for their intended spouse only. Their would be many fewer abortions and surely fewer divorces.

Now if that's archaic thinking I will take credit for that. It's worked for me and my children....no abortion and no divorces.

What's archaic and barbaric to me is how people today don't respect their own sexual purity which then results in unwanted pregnancy and then murder of innocent unborn children. Also, marriage is entered into without a real understaning of what it is, which ultimately results in divorce and all the associated devastation to the husband and wife involed and their children. So we have murder and devastation due to a lack of godly wisdom. Who's thinking is archaic?

His Man,

I'm sorry if I came across as patronizing you. If you notice, I did not say that you were being archaic. I said that I understood how what you said could sound archaic. We're on the same team guy, and I happen to agree with you on this.

But understand, when I read that post, all I could think was "Oh, heavens, the girls are gonna have a field day with that one!"

While you may understand your faith (sorry, earlier I think I confused you with John McDonnel and accused you of being a Catholic), you are talking to young women here who don't think abortion is wrong, and you want them to accept that a broken hymen proves their impurity. It was a great leap, and good for you for taking it, but surely you can see where, to them, you would sound archaic.

Since you, John McDonnel and I are the three that come at this from a theological point of view, I would hate to see a house get divided over something as inconsequential as this type of misunderstanding.

I didn't mean to imply that you were wrong. I just tried to approach it from a different standpoint.

I'll stay out of it in the future from now on if you like, but I gotta tell, I think that would be a shame. While your points are good, they just aren't written in "young women of the 21st century when abortion is legal and multiple sexual partners are the norm of the day"language.

I wasn't correcting you, so much as translating.

MK

Girls, enough hymen jokes. Some of your posts became vulgar, and I removed them.

I appreciate that you come to my blog as skeptics. Much of what you read by pro-life Christians such as MK and His Man is absolutely foreign to you, I'm sure, and apparently laughable.

If you do not believe the comments written, believe the spirits of the people writing. If nothing else, they deserve your respect. They have spent years studying their topics, and they are taking the time to write information here for two reasons: 1) to expose you to knowledge of a greater, nobler, healthier life - because they care about you; and 2) to defend the honor of the One who originally gave these precepts for our own good.

In regard to #2, a girl I expect was about your age gave her life at Columbine when the shooter pointed a gun at her head and told her to renounce Christ or die. She refused. He killed her. Devotion to #2 is as serious as that. You do not understand the love for you of Whom you mock. She did.

His Man and Jill--
Please do not lump all of the pro-choice women who post on this board into a category of unreligious harlots based on a primitive sexual practice. Some of us understand very well the love of God and have a very personal relationship with Him. Some do not believe at all. And rather than exhibiting a loving spirit toward those who do not believe as you do, you have condemned them on your own narrow interpretation and driven them farther from God. I can see YOU turning pale white when YOU face the thone of Christ to give an account of YOUR indiscretion.

MK--I very much appreciate your attempt to explain your beliefs in a way that was more relatable. Altho I disagree with many of your points, I respect that your relationship with your husband is suited to the two of you and that you are at peace with God, and I am very happy that you have found that.

So let me get this straight...

Just because I find it disgusting and backwards that a man still believes a woman has to shed blood to prove her purity and virginity to a man, I must be sexually promiscuous and lack any faith???

Someone should probably tell my fiance, and the reverend of my church. They both may be a bit surprised.

Let's make one thing clear: I (and most other people) respect your beliefs. I may not agree with them, but it's none of my business who you pray to. It's equally not somebody else's place to tell me who I should pray to.

But this: "Because of the seriousness and gravity of this custom in those days, women probably took better care of their hymens, I guess in direct contradiction to what's done today as stated by the rather glib and unshameful description of events in which Amanda, Joy, Danielle, Samantha, Ashlee, and Stephanie explained how they broke theirs." is too much.
They simply gave examples of why the idea of a hymen being the indicator or virginity is false. You can break it when you climb on a horse, when you get up from a couch or at a million other possibilities. There's nothing "unshameful" about it.

Yeah - I never knew horseback riding was shameful. Thats a new one for sure. I guess using tampons means you're sexually promiscuous too?

"Because of the seriousness and gravity of this custom in those days, women probably took better care of their hymens, I guess in direct contradiction to what's done today as stated by the rather glib and unshameful description of events in which Amanda, Joy, Danielle, Samantha, Ashlee, and Stephanie explained how they broke theirs. Wow, I can see them turning pale white when they face the thone of Christ to give an account of their indiscretion. But that's not the point."

First of all, unless there is another Joy here, I never said anything about my own hymen or how it was broken. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Secondly, horseback-riding is not an "indiscretion." It's a leisurely activity that many people, men and women, enjoy. It is also not the only way a woman can break her hymen. Many athletes who participate in rigorous sports encounter the same issue - a broken hymen long before any sort of sexual encounter. I hardly think this is an "indiscretion" unless you think all women should refrain from physical activity.

Which I guess from your statement "women took better care of their hymens" is your position. Perhaps we should all just sit quietly and move as little as possible so that we bleed the first time we have sex.

What an archaic, backwards human being you are. Chastising and insulting women who didn't "take care of their hymens" enough? I'm sure when they "face the throne of Christ", God will look to their hearts, not their hymens. Something you should think about when you're trying to shame women for something as innocent as riding a horse.

I'm really insulted, Hisman, as well. Don't you dare judge ME for saying that a hobby, which KEPT ME AWAY FROM THE BOYS, was an indiscretion that goes against God. I didn't intentionally try to "devirginize" myself. You are a misogynistic, backwards man. I suppose I'll tell any of my future daughters not to be active in any way, just so they can make sure not to break their hymens. Just to make sure that they can experience pain for sure the first time they have sex...because, you know, the blood covenant is only a promise made by the woman. Since, you know, women are the only ones who need to promise anything due to our shameful natures. You're sick, and overly judgmental. We'll see who turns pale white from indiscretions.

I'm sickened, literally sickened, at the thought that you might have daughters. What are you going to do, forbid them from ever engaging in rigorous exercise? Because God forbid you hand away your daughter's "tainted" virginity at her wedding. I might vomit.

How is it a blood covenant anyway? Men don't bleed the first time they have sex, so the two sides aren't giving equally anyway. When a woman gets married, she has more to offer a relationship than a virginity.

That old tradition with the "blood covenant" never guarantees that the man being married was a virgin either. Or is that not a sin for a man to enter a marriage not being a virgin...Oh well, it really doesn't matter, does it? He has no blood to spill. Only the woman is expected to be "pure". Men are sinless, right?

Joy,

Here's your direct quote,"People really still believe this? No wonder women are still killed in some countries for not bleeding after their first sexual encounter. How ignorant and sad."

It's the attitude that someone could even share something as personal as how their hymmen was broke on the internet is amazing to me. You just don't get it do you?

I was trying to explain how in OT times women obviously held their virginity or concern thereof in higher esteem than many women do today. Apparently this notion is an affront to many of today's women. If it weren't an affront this inernet site wouldn't exist because there would obvioulsy be no legal abortion since most women would have higher morals and not even think of killing their unborn children.

You response proves my point.

Instead of seeing a different way of looking at something you attack me and my person. You are so typical. You can't argue agsint the truth so you attack. Go ahead, the truth doen' t change despite your spoiled brat outlook. Abortion is murder and abortionists are murderers.

You have the nerve to call me an archaic human and backward human being as if to imply that today's way of thinking is somehow "advanced". Well I've never killed my child. No, I've raised five great children who all have high moral standards, believe in the sanctity of marriage and all life, born or unborn and have a relationship with Jesus Christ which will result in them being eternally saved. Perhpas your advanced way of thinking can tell me how I can prevent my own death. I won't call you an archaic human being, however, I'll just blame it on all the psycho-babble you've learned over the years in our so-called advanced institutions of learning. It's not just not your fault, you're a victim.

MK,

props to you for translating HisMan- that was exactly what I was talking about in the other day when I said he does not want to communicate.

But some of the things HisMan thinks he knows about female anatomy are just not quite correct:

HisMan says:
"When a women's hymen is broken, there's an issue of blood. It may be microscopic in some cases, but usually, there is a little more than that"

Frankly, none, and I mean, none of the females in my circle of acquaintances bled- if they actually did then there was not enough to show outside her body. While this might still satisfy the blood covenant, it does NOT satisfy fathers checking a blanket and finding it spotless. It is a very very dangerous custom that in some countries leads to the injust injury of women.

"God intended that marriage to occur in a virgin state"

Marriage or marriage-like relationships existed long before the Bible. Did God not exist then? Marriage is also rooted in factors that are far removed from spirituality. But that's just social science and if someone takes the Bible literally, guess it falls onto deaf ears.

Virginity is a state of mind, not a state of your anatomy. I know nuns who had been married before they went to convent. I know girls who felt they did not have sex even though they actually had lost their physicall virginity. There is also no point in protecting a hymen if Virginity is not ingrained in the heart. Even from a Christian's point of view the focus on a piece of excess tissue is overrated.

If blood is so important (as admittedly it is in Christianity) how about bride and groom slicing their palms and holding hands? This way the man , too gets to shed some blood-

Alyssa

"This topic had NOTHING to do with abortion."

I think it does. People who base their opposition of abortion entirely on religious grounds have a certain mind set, which gives them certain ideas about abortion, women, women's proper place, marriage and family life. These values are usually very traditional, and go hand in hand. One of the reasons why many pro-life women oppose abortion is because they feel it is a direct affront to motherhood. The general profile of a pro-life woman (not everyone!) is that of a not very highly educated woman who has been taught motherhood and family is the proper sphere that will bring her happiness. Of course she will defend this to the bone. Men like HisMan probably see abortion as a direct affront to the image he has about the proper behavior of women. Abortion is embedded in these issues for quite a few people. Just as liberals approach it from a civil liberties angle.

Sorry, I am not lecturing you- just pseudo-analyzing ;).

"something as personal as how their hymmen was broke on the internet is amazing to me."

How is it personal? I was horseback riding, it broke. Big whoop.

I was also 12 at the time and not at all interested in boys. So it had nothing to do with sex. Only reason I knew what happened was because it hurt a little bit. I didn't bleed at all. For some girls it doesn't even hurt!

And on top of that it's possible for a female to not even have one at birth.

http://www.coolnurse.com/hymen.htm

http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/hymen.html

Sexual compatibility is an important part of one's relationship. Nothing against virgins, but if I was sexually incompatible with a long-term interest I'd like to know about it long before our wedding night.

Samantha,
You don't contract HPV by shaking hands. This virus lives in the genital area. Being chaste would protect you.

@EE: HPV wiki says
"More than 100 different human papillomavirus (HPV) types have been characterized. Some HPV types cause benign skin warts, or papillomas, for which the virus family is named. HPVs associated with the development of such "common warts" are transmitted environmentally or by casual skin-to-skin contact."

Joy, Joe, Alyssa, Zurg, Danielle and whoever else: Knock it off. I've deleted many of your posts that went too far on the hymen topic. Change the subject.

Please explain to me how my post went too far? I can privately remind you of its content if necessary.

You're certainly entitled to keep your webspace civil, but there's a difference between civility and suppressing a dissenting opinion.

Zurg, I deleted any further comments on the topic I said to knock off talking about.

I am quite tolerant of dissenting opinion, as you well know. As for civility - and moreso vulgarity - my threshhold is obviously lower than yours.

"Girls, enough hymen jokes. Some of your posts became vulgar, and I removed them."
This is different from, "Time to change the topic, any further posts on this topic will be deleted." I wasn't making a "joke", it was a serious question that I was hoping for an answer for.

If I had known you wanted a change of topic, I would have done so. I'm cooperative, but not psychic.

I apologize, Jill, and it is completely up to you to delete posts even if I disagree. I don't think I went "too far" in explaining to HisMan that his assumptions about me and accusations to me were unfair. I was not vulgar nor did I feel like I used inappropriate language. I think it's quite unfair that HisMan can imply that I'm immoral, call me a "spoiled brat", and accuse me of killing my child (which I have never and would never do!) and his posts don't get deleted. But I guess it's up to you to allow that sort of message on your blog while denying a voice to those who would disagree with him.

"Joy, Joe, Alyssa, Zurg, Danielle and whoever else: Knock it off. I've deleted many of your posts that went too far on the hymen topic. Change the subject."

Jill, I honestly apologize- but I am confused. The two entries dealing with the topic you mention are still in the thread. You only deleted my question asking HisMan whether he has ever graduated from any of the institutions (universities I reckon) he spoke of with a degrading undertone. I am not sure why that had to go but it obviously is your blog and In respect that. Sorry.

I just looked at this post again in my archive.

You deleted the posts of 5 different dissenters who were discussing the same topic as "HisMan", yet you left his posts.

If this is a matter of changing the subject, not the fact that we don't agree - why were his posts not deleted, but ONLY those of dissenters were?

"we were shameful for horseback riding."

Another thing to add to the list of why I'm going to Hell. ^_^

I guess we're all going to hell for accuratly naming our body parts! Oh well its only 1 more thing to add to the list!: just keep sinning, just keep sinning.

"just keep sinning, just keep sinning."

YOMANK!!!

Of course not! Where would we be in this world if children learned the proper names of their "dirrty places"?
Girls especially, since knowledge is power, We'd better keep them in the dark in case god-FORBID One of us has a decent head on our shoulders!
//Sarcasm

Oo, thanks! ^_^

His Man,

I have taken this directly from your post above:
"God intended that marriage to occur in a virgin state; there's no medical reason for the issue of blood except that is is a blood covenant."
My question is this: if God intended from the beginning that marriage occur in a virgin state, why is it that Jacob, after whom the nation of Israel was named, married two sisters and their two concubines? I doubt his virginity was magically rescinded when he took Rachel as his wife, having already consummated his union with her sister.

All right you guys, behave.
Don't make me turn this car around.

You're age is showing. And while I'm glad to see you are all getting along, I know well the sound of that laughter. Sure it's all fun and games now, but someones gonna get hurt and then the laughter turns to tears.

Wait til your father gets home.

Be nice.

Please?
MK

You guys,

You know very well that it's not about the "words".
Try to remember that this being on this website is like being in Jills home.

I know you're ticked off about the hymen comment... Jill is not deleting you because of the "words" you use, but the content in which you use them.

C'mon, you're all intelligent. You know this.
Show her some respect and give it a rest.

I'd stick up for HisMan but he asked me not to interfere. Let me just say that ganging up on him is a little unfair.

Each of us is coming at this from a different place. Each place has value. I hate abortion, but I respect you guys and want to continue doing so.

Attack the argument? yes. Attack the person? no.

Attack Jill? That's unfair. You're her guest here.

Okay?
Now, put away your toys and get ready for dinner.
MK

Zurg,

It's nice to have you back. I think.
MK

Maybe the term "blood covenant" could use a little more explaining.

In the old testament, the Jews believed that blood carried the very essence of life. They didn't have lawyers back then, so there was no "riders" and "addendums". When a contract or a covenant was made it was "signed in blood"...

When Moses came down from the mountain with the 10 commandments, he killed 2 (calves, goats? I don't remember, but they definitely bled) and he turned to the people and asked them if they agreed to the terms on the tablet. They answered yes and he sprinkled blood on them.(yes, I know, it's kinda gross), then he sprinkled it on the alter to represent God's end of the covenant.

As we all know, they eventually broke this covenant.

That's when God sent Jesus. And the reason "blood" is made such a big deal in the crucifixion is because this was God signing a new covenant.

Remember when I said that God had no past, present or future? That now, then, and later is all the same thing to God. Well, Catholics believe that every time we celebrate the Eucharist (communion) we are actually jumping over the time barrier and taking part in the crucifixion as it is happening.
This is why we eat his "real" body and drink his "real" blood in the form of bread and wine. We are sealing the covenant. We weren't born then so we don't physically transport (that would be too star trekky) but because there is no "time" with God we are spiritually transported back to the cruicfixion every time we celebrate the Eucharist.

That's why when you make fun of the blood and the hymen and the covenant, you are really poking fun of something that we hold sacred.

See?

It's not just the words, it's what they represent.

Thanks for listening,
mk

Every time I look at the picture on the top of this post I think of you guys...silly rabbits!
mk

MK,

Have you read my post to you and HisMan? I am not poking any fun at the theme of blood in Christianity- I simply diagree with HisMan on his focus, which is easily possible without reverting to demeaning Christianity.

Also, I know you probably mean it in a friendly way as you seem a friendly person- but some people might find your assumptions that people disagreeing with your stance lead rabbit-like love lives a bit insulting. It is probably not even true, certainly not in my case.

Thanks.

I never even thought of rabbit like love...
I was referring to trix cereal and simply teasing the "kids"...

But now that you mention it...oops.
I actually think the kids at the top are adorable.

And I realize they are younger than most of the young men and women on this site, it's just that with all the "alley talk" and giggling going on, I kept seeing that picture and thinking of them.

Sort of like when you're supposed to be quiet in a library and someone starts laughing...the harder you try to stop, the more you laugh?

That's what all those posts reminded me. It took on a life of it's own and I was reminded of kids just acting silly...hence, silly rabbits.

Maybe you didn't see the posts before Jill deleted them. You weren't included in the above silly rabbit jibe. They know who they were...

MK

To All:

Blogging is difficult because it is not done in real time. Please and I say PLEASE, I was responding to a quote that said marriage was just a piece of paper numerous posts back. Those words that say that marriage is just a piece of paper are extremely dangerous and must be countered or risk poisoning the minds of many that may read these posts.

The idea that marriage is just a piece of paper is absolutely wrong and that very attitude contributes to so much of the problems we have with regards to pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, murdering unborn babies, etc. If marriage were given the high esteem that it deserves, people would save themselves for their future spouse. If they saved themselves for their future spouse, there would never be a need for murdering unborn children, unless of course, a married couple considered their unborn baby to be a curse and not a blessing and decide to murder it.

I was trying to explain how marriage is more than a piece of paper, i.e., it is a blood covenant and it is very, very, very important to God and for that reason it should be very, very important to each one of us.

The issue isn't about hymens or blood, its about differing opinions on what marriage is. If you blaspheme and degrade marriage by saying it's just a legal document or piece of paper, then marriage becomes no different than signing a contract to buy a house or car. A contract between two people can be broken or changed. Now I dare you to stop paying the mortgage on your house. I guarantee that the bank will use that piece of paper to ruin your life and financial situation and anyone who has been through a foreclosure will back me up on that.

In God's eyes marriage is a covenant that cannot be broken except for infidelity and it is signed, sealed, and delivered in blood. And even for infidelity God would rather see forgiveness and reconciliation even as difficult as that would be. IT'S NOT A PIECE OF PAPER FOR GOD'S SAKE. How much more will a Holy God deal with people who trample on covenants made in blood? Do you think the Bible's warning about hell are just threats and not real?

Samantha T:

There you go again. I assume Jacob's sisters and concubines were virgins. I know that's not fair and equal and politically correct but who in the heck are YOU to question ANYTHING God does or commands?

God's intent and that's a real big word for you I know, but his intent is for two people who have never had sex before to join in the blood covenant of marriage. You know why that's His intent? Because He's the designer and the manufacturer of all of us and He knows what's best for us. And amazingly, because He loves us, He wants the best for us. He wants us to have blessed marriages that make up happy. He does not want us to have to argue as to whether or not we should be murdering babies in the womb. My God, where in the hell has the IQ of this generation gone to? It's simply ignorant beyond belief to question such basic tenants of morality. We are now reaping the results of taking God out of schools in the 1960's.

I's dcoumented through and through and through in the New Testament that God's intent is for the marriage bed to be pure at initial consumation and during the term of the marriage. The covenant of marriage is still sacred in God's eyes and always will be for it is the earthly symbol of Christ's love for the church for which He died.

I seriously recommend that all women reading this post put aside their pride and arrogance and let God speak to their hearts. You might just be able to rise from the anger brewing in you as a result of all the BS ideas you have been fed over the last 40 years from reprobate institutions of so-called higher learning, the liberal media and Hollywood. These entities could care less about you and your soul.

Marriage is not a piece of paper, it's a blood covenant. Abortion is murder and abortionists are murdereres.

HisMan,

Funny, my uncle and his "girlfriend" have been together for 30 years and aren't married because that's all they think it is. They say that they don't need a piece of paper to tell them that they're married because they are in their hearts.

Just read this thread over and am posting,

I really do sense a division ... probably of age differences but like MK says she, HisMan, and I are on the same team - different experiences but same team.

My experience: It is very difficult to communicate any idea at all to a strong person who perceives you are strong as well. [Incidentally, this MAY be one of the reasons why Jesus was scourged, and then crucified .... all His dignity(life) was spent(given/broken) .... to welcome(heal) our brokenness!]

Jill tolerantly puts-up with my weird observations ... these are indeed strange because these are the unusual thoughts of a person (me) that is physically broken by a genetic disability.

Often, I will not say anything at all, because I know it can be a 'heavy - downer'. For effervescent youngsters like MK ... I hope my words are an assist ... to one wonderful being. And they are a prop (I hope) to another wonderful person, HisMan.

The words (even the attitudes) of both MK and HisMan can be fuller, somehow! Jesus spoke two very shattering (yet simple) words. Both the seemingly innocent words 'in' and 'one' have very profound implications for our spiritual lives.

[For Catholics, there should be a growth towards the familiar -away from formalism ... Jesus is my brother, God is our Abba(Daddy) and in keeping with this ... Mary is our Mom. Try: blessing yourself with - "In your name, Jesus; and yours, Abba; and yours Holy Spirit." Now recite the rosary changing all the thee's/thou's to you/your ... the Our Father's to Abba, the Hail Mary's to 'Dear Mom' ... I will promise you an unbelievable depth awaits you. No longer will you go before Jesus to be judged, but you and He become One (enter the kingdom of heaven, as Jesus spoke of it) .... then in His Heart, you enter into Abba's Heart(many call this God's flame/fire) ... it is a mind shattering/numbing experience .... really hard to even put into words. [Alyssa has it right: my name is 'John'.]

But people will read this and wonder just what I'm on .... guess!

Abortion is about trying to end what God has begun; a preference for darkness, when we are creatures of light ... sure hope Momof3 is fine and her baby too!

Jill,

What is it with you and deleting post that show nothing but truthful articles. There IS surgery out there at woman go threw in order to have a hymen recreated. Especially women in cultures were they can be killed by their FAMILY if they DON'T bleed on their wedding night. I'm not making it up. It actually happens. I'm not attacking HisMan, which seems to be who you're trying to protect. I'm stating FACTS against a hymen being a confirmation of virginity. Which is something that you as a nurse should know.

And why should we be ashamed to mention it? We shouldn't. While I don't understand the logic behind God/Religion, I know that other people put their whole faith behind it. But I see the danger in making a hymen out to be a bigger deal than it really is. Okay, yes maybe a hymen is for a blood bond, but if it was *IN MY OPINION* then ALL girls would bleed when it's broken (which they don't) and there wouldn't be a way to break it otherwise. Since their is I don't believe that the hymen has any significants what so ever. Why am I not allowed my opinion, but HisMan is?

And what, you have something against vampyres? Since you've deleted very post I've made about blood bonds, I assume you do. I am also not making that up. A very good friend of my from high school considers himself a vampyre. And it's a very interesting topic to learn about if you would just step outside this little bubble that you keep yourself in.

I have said nothing disrespectful at all in this post and if you delete you are the one out of line.

Danielle,

You fail to understand that marriage is not just between two people.

It's between a man and a women and their Creator. Again, a blood covenant.

Leave Him out and in His eyes, there's no marriage. Sorry, that's what the Book says and your uncle didn't write the book.

God created marriage, not men or women. He's the author and therefore, gets to write the definition.

Seems like your uncle hasn't set a very good example for you.

And, if it's just a piece of paper, what man would not do the paper. What's he holding back for? Maybe the ability to walk away without consequence? And what kind of woman would give her body to a man without marriage?

I would hope that you would think enough of yourself to never give yourself fully to a man without him fully giving himslef to you and that before a Holy God who loves you and knows what's best for you and your eternal soul.

Abortion is murder and abortionists are murderers.

His Man,

You fail to understand that not everyone believes in your God, so you can't use the excuse, "God says so, so it must be right." I don't need your God to tell me that I love and trust someone.

And how dare you judge Danielle's uncle. He's setting a much better example than those worthless husbands who get married and go cheat on their spouses. Being together for 30 years means something significant, God or no.

You ask what kind of a woman would give herself to a man without marriage? What kind of man would give himself to a woman without marriage? I ask, why not, if they are in it for the long run?

Oops, sorry for the double post.

And MK, I like you. You're respectful and intelligent. To be honest, I didn't like you at all with our first talks, but I try to understand what points you are getting across because you don't do it in a insulting manner.

His Man is not respectful. At all.

If anyone is being off topic, it's HisMan. The whole last line bit in all of his posts about abortions being murders isn't that relevant.

I will never understand how the beauty of the Christian message can be so hijacked by sexism. Women must remain chaste because no one wants "damaged property". When we start referencing virtue and holiness only in terms of female chastity, we completely absolve males of all responsibility.

And don't feed me some line about how men live under the same rules. They don't get inspected for virginity, they aren't under the same pressures, and they certainly don't suffer honor killings even if someone could prove that he had sex before marriage.

I also personally love the hypocritical nature of criticizing documents written by man. The Bible was written by man too. Pretty convenient that someone was smart enough to think, "Hey, if I want someone to buy all of this, I better include a few lines about divine inspiration and consequences following changing the text."

And don't start calling me some heathen, promiscuous abortionist. I believe in God, I'm just not a Christian. Not that it matters if I was any of those things anyway. Just because you can label some people doesn't mean you aren't guilty of equally bad sins. You just don't have labels.
In a pinch, I think "hypocritical", "judgemental", and "self-important" will do.

Wow, really sorry for all the posts. Feel free to delete the extras. Must have been something wrong with my browser.

"Seems like your uncle hasn't set a very good example for you."

Don't you dare to say that about somebody you don't even know.
I assumed something about your son because he's military and you corrected me immediately. Now you're doing the same and I correct you the best I can: You know ONE fact about Danielle's uncle: he and his girlfriend have been together for 30 years without getting married (which, I think, is really cool. It's just a piece of paper and if they're happy- who cares about the rest?). That doesn't give you any right to judge him. Marriage may make you happy, but - and now listen carefully - we're NOT all like you. Her uncle has set a GREAT example by staying with the woman he loves for three decades, unlike men who get married and divorced within a year. I applaude him.

"Leave Him out and in His eyes, there's no marriage. Sorry, that's what the Book says and your uncle didn't write the book."

Neither did you.

"We are now reaping the results of taking God out of schools in the 1960's."

Well, he hasn't been taken out over here. And surprise - I'm still not a hardcore Catholic or whatever. I believe in God, but I refuse to let my life be dictated by him. I'm perfectly able to make my own decisions, whether you like it or not.

And you last remark was uncalled for.

Danielle, 3/21, 11:17p: I didn't think I deleted your post but must have. Sorry. I looked up your links but was attempting to multitask and apparently goofed. Please feel free to repost.

And yes, I think discussions about "vampyres" are off-topic and ridiculous, actually. Don't bother going there.

Jen, 3/22, 2:27a: As to the Bible and women, if only you would see Christianity/the Bible has done more to liberate women than any other force in history. (Or maybe you do see it, as I understand what you wrote, and agree the Bible has been misinterpreted and used in some cases to advance sexism?)

Compare Christian-based countries (Western) to Muslim- and all-other-based countries (Eastern). If you read about Jesus' treatment of women and teachings about women in context you will be amazed.

I don't want to get into the red-flag Bible passages here. The debate is unending. But I've studied it. I wrote a few of my thoughts a few months back, actually (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50819). The issue of women in the Bible and Christianity is my second passion to abortion. Analyzed properly and in context, the Bible's teachings about women are freeing. (The second most important book in my life next to the Bible has been Woman and the Bible by Mary Evans. I believe it's now available to download online.)

One of your links pointed out how unchristian beliefs hurt women. I'm an RN, as you likely know. I've been in deliveries of Middle Eastern women. It is only their husbands who say their wives need no pain relief. It is only their husbands who then try to leave the room until the delivery is over. (And I know why they fear/hate we Western women for our outspokenness because I told them they were in America now and were going to stay in the delivery and to be quiet, of course their wives could get pain relief.) I've been in the delivery of a woman I'll never forget who had a clitorectomy and labia sewn shut.

And with that last sentence in mind, you can see I don't mind serious discussions about body parts. The discussion yesterday became juvenile. His Man was making serious points and giving good lessons from history as to the context of his points and punks began ridiculing him and purposefully (or stupidly) taking his words out of context, which I will not allow.

His Man says:

"God created marriage, not men or women. He's the author and therefore, gets to write the definition."

HisMan, do you literally believe in the Bible? That the earth is 6000 years old and that there has been no history before Adam and Eve? If you do- well, then we live in such different spheres that a discussion is completely fruitless. If you are however aware that human beings have had marriages and mongamous relationships thousands of years before God revealed himself, I suggest you take that into account.

I agree that marriage is incredibly more than a piece of paper. it is the spirituality of it that I appreciate and find at the center of it. NOT procreation. You can really well procreate outside marriage and it has again been done since the dawn of humankind. Else we would not be here today.

Marriage is important for aspects other than procreation because it gives you things you can rarely find outside marriage. BUT: the HISTORY of marriage and what it was based on has got nothing to do with a conscious awareness of God, nor with spirituality, not even with LOVE.

It is good that this union was elevated onto a spiritual and more meaningful level. It is BAD that men for many centruies now are obsessed with female virginity, and make it the center of spirituality and purity, conveniently forgetting the massive repression it creates over women and what power it creates for men. It frankly puts the more important meaning of marriage somewhat onto a back burner.

I agree that early marriage would reduce the need for many abortions. But a significant percentage of women aborting are already married. I guess they just don;t get what marriage is about in your opinion. But that's your opinion. Some women would also experience severe health problems if they carried on. and then there are again some that never asked for being violated. I am not excusing abortion. I am just saying everyone 'saving' themselves for a partner would NOT make the need for abortion that some women feel disappear.

People have changed their ways of living NOT because God was taken out of school in the 60s. Many people go to private religious schools today and have a very secular view on sex. It is our lifestyle as a whole. People in the UK for example get married on average at age 35. Because they have higher education, and because they spend more time finding their own niche and building careers, which are more complex nowadays than in the 60s. When you finish High school and get married at age 19 you might be able to remain a virgin, get married and to not want different things in life because you don;t really have the skills to go anywhere else. That has changed.

God is still in this world, you know, and who are you to know which changes in our world are NOT in his intent, I think now it is YOU thinking you know better than HIM. You are creating an idealized world somewhere located in the past, but if you take a close look at it, all the things you bemoan existed back then, just more hidden, maybe less frequent, but complemented by other ills that don;t exist anymore today.

Sorry for this overly long post...

Jill says:

"Or maybe you do see it, as I understand what you wrote, and agree the Bible has been misinterpreted and used in some cases to advance sexism?)"

Exactly! The Bible can be interpreted very positively regarding women. Unfortunately, it is human beings who interpret it, and they are not free of ulterior motives. Pope John Paul himself said he is sorry for how the teaching has been distorted and innapropriately used by humans throughout history. Something really ugly can grow from something very positive when left unchallenged.

Oddly enough, it sounds like Danielles uncle is following God's design without realizing it. HisMan says marriage isn't a piece of paper...it's a covenant. You guys say it is a piece of paper. And that the paper is worthless if the people's hearts aren't in the right place.

Yet, really you are both agreeing. HisMan is in reality agreeing that it is just a piece of paper, when it is a union sans God. You say it isn't just a piece of paper and what really matters is the love and commitment shown to one another within the marriage bonds.

You're both actually saying the same thing.
It sounds like Danielle's uncle agrees also. He said that he prizes his relationship so much that he won't degrade it with signing a piece of paper and turning it into a contract. He is living out a covenant.

He'd actually be a great candidate for a Catholic Marriage as he understands the "forever" bond better than many people who sign the "paper". Just look at pre-nups.

I'd be curious as to whether or not your uncle and his bride were virgins (or less promiscuous than most from their generation, when they met). It would be rather ironic if they were. Here would be this non-christian couple living out the christian ideal.

Your uncle seems to understand the concept of a "monogamous relationship" perfectly and as such is a great example for this board.

I've said before, and I'll say again, that while I believe every human being is called to follow the teachings of Jesus, we are not all Catholic/Christian and therefore we cannot apply the same rules and regulations. If you look at Jesus' arms on the cross, you'll notice that they are wide open. Knowing body language, we see that He is "beckoning" us. His last words "I thirst" are not about getting a drink!

Open arms are different than having a gun to your head. Sometimes I think that pygmy tribes in some remote corner of Africa have a better chance of hearing His message than people living in the West. So many conflicting voices. So many distractions. And of course, there is college where you are taught to be "free thinkers". But Jesus and his teachings aren't about thinking. They are lessons written on the heart and deep in the soul.

It seems like without realizing it, Danielles uncle has listened to these lessons and entered into a union that reflects, perhaps unwittingly, exactly what "marriage" was meant to be.

Of course, as a Catholic, I realize that he is "living in sin". But to live in sin, or to commit a "mortal" sin (a sin grave enough to separate you from God) you must realize that you are, in fact, committing this sin. He doesn't. So he is not held up to the same standard as HisMan, John, and I. We can't get away with nearly as much as the secular world, because we are "in the know" so to speak.

We are, however, obligated by our Faith, to point out the errors of the world and invite, (notice I said invite, not berate) people to enter into this beautiful place.

While ignorance of the law doesn't cut it in the secular world, it does hold some weight in the the "eternal" one. Not knowing will buy you some mercy. But once "you know", you are responsible for what "you know".

Our Father, is not a finger pointer. Jesus is not a dictator. They are our family. Some of us might estranged from our family, but Our Father and Our Brother continue to look out for us and want what is best for us. Their door is always open.

To some they shout, to others they whisper. I have all the faith in the world, that between my prayers and you're openness to the truth, you guys will each, in your own time and way, hear their voices.

Until then, remember, that everyone on this blog is a person, has feelings, and is doing the best that they can, where they are, with what they have.

Peace to all,
MK

MK,

I do not know if my uncle and aunt were virgins when they were married. That's not really something that has come up in conversation. Not to mention, I haven't known them very long since my father and his brother were separated through the foster care system.

He is not a Christian nor is my aunt. They both follow a Native American "faith" as does my father.

HisMan,

How dare you say that my uncle has been a bad influence on me. This man has been committed to the same woman for 30 years with no infidelity, how is that a bad influence? Should he instead have been married and gotten a divorce? Would that have been a better influence over me?

Marriage does not mean monogamy or forever (although I personally believe that it should). Married couples can still cheat on each other or get a divorce.

My uncle hasn't done any of those. He has three wonderful children with my aunt and they're happier than many other married couples I've met.

This probably won't be helping my case in your eyes, but I don't believe in your God (as an atheist I don't believe in any God), but I do enjoy the Native American teachings that my father and uncle follow.

I hope to get married some day. Hopefully to my boyfriend of two years, but it will not be a religious ceremony and there will be no God involved since I'm an atheist and he is agnostic (raised Christian). When I marry it will be for the love of the person that I am marrying, not to make our love acceptable in the eyes of YOUR God.

Jesus said, "don't worry that they hate you, because it is Me they hate".

Ingrid, no assumption was made on my part about Danielle's uncle. By her own confession she said that her uncle was not married. I never told you that my son dropped bombs on people, you assumed that because I said he was an Air Force pilot. So your point is without logic.

Joe, on the day God created the earth, would trees have rings, would the earth contain fossils? If carbon dating existed on the day of creation, how old would various materials be shown to be, 1 day old? I believe that materials on the day of creation using the carbon dating method would have shown them to be millions of years old because there would be no radioactivity. Because of the firmament that was present in orbit around the earth at creation, no gamman rays would have yet bombarded the earth. Do you understand what carbon-14 dating is Joe? Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years. Where's the starting point Joe? Do you think it a coincidence that the 5,700 year number or almost 6,000 years is just a coincidence? Did you know that the Bible says that the earth's atmosphere at creation was described as a firmament. Have you ever seen the rings of Saturn. What about Jupiter, it's mostly gas. That means that most likely, there was a thick layer of water in orbit around the earth at creation which would have prevented cosmic rays from ever reaching earth and the materials on it's surface. An asmumption is made regarding 1/2 life, etc. however, it really is an act of faith to assume you know when the stating point was. Don't assume that I have not thought very deeply, and at a gut wrenching level about all this and, because you obviously haven't, you tone out that I'm somehow stupid and that your logic is somehow so superior to mine that a discussion is fruitless. Well, pride comes before a fall my friend. You would do well to ask God for His wisdom and not man's. It's funny how God will give us evidence of Himself but which can only be found by those who truly seek Him with ALL their hearts.

Danielle: I never claimed to write the Book, however, I have read and studied the Book and have shown myself to be approved, a workman that need not be ashamed. With that, I have a repsonsibilty to teach what the Book says. You yourself said "your uncle and his girlfriend" meaning that they are not married, right? The Book says that's a bad example.
By your own admission, you don't believe in God, right? That's good? The Book says that a fool says in his heart there is no God. So, you will live for 70 or 80 years and that's it. What's the point? I mean no God, no future, right?
And marriage does not mean monogamy or forever? Who told you that, your uncle?
OK, why don't you have your uncle save you then, I mean, he appears to be your Living Bible.

MK: I am a very affectionate person, however, I will not compromise the truth by trying to be touchy-feely friends with everyone. Jesus didn't do it and I won't do it. They didn't crucify Him because He was poopular. Besides being a friend to the world is emnity with God. Jesus said He came to bring a sword. I have the mind of Christ, so I have no interest in making peace with anyone who opposes the truth. Now, having said that, I don't have a quarrel with you, but please don't put words in my mouth. I will repeat this one last time: "Marriage is not just a piece of paper". If a couple says the words in a ceremony before witnesses, even if they don't love each other and don't mean it, and then consumate the marriage, by God's definition, they are married. They said the words, they did the deed, they entered into a blood covenant before God and met His requirements. The Bible says that we will be judged by our words and not the intentions of our hearts. Conversely, if they never say the words before witnesses, even if they stay together for 30 years and "love" (I assume lust and not agape love) each other, they have never been married in God's eyes. That's what the Book says. This translates into the problem with the redefinition of marriage. If two people of the same sex love each other and say the words before witnesses, in God's eyes, there's no marriage because two people of the same sex are not candidates for marriage. God's condition for what and what is a marriage are defined by Him and not us, period. Homosexual marriage is a counterfeit. Inserting a penis into a rectum filled with the body's wastes produces disease and death as is so tragically demonstrated by the AIDS epidemic (and I know heterosexuals trassmit AIDS too, however, AIDS began with a homosexual man who had sex with a monkey and then several partners on his many flights around the world). Homosexual sex will never produce life as the seed is planted in bad soil. God's plan is for two people who have entered into a blood covenant in heterosexual marriage to plant a seed into the good soil of a womb and from that produce life.

By the way, I think that when most people on this web-site talk about the word love, they confuse it with lust (the desire for another person) and not love (doing waht's best for another person). The love God looks for is agape love which is loved defined as doing what is best for the welfare of the other person wihout expectation of anything in return which includes teaching them about God so that they will be saved, standing firm in your moral convictions, etc. Obvioulsy all of us want to feel eros love, however, true eros love can only be felt by two people who have learned to agape each other and then are blessed by God with true eros love. Not possible betwen two people who are not married in God's eyes. They are simply lusting after one another and in the process cheating themselves of a love that comes from a place that is out of this world, heaven.

And I ma not sorry that this is a long post.

Hisman,

What you call touch feely I call respecting other human beings. I have never once said that the views they hold are right. I just respect their right to hold them.

And I never said Danielle's uncle was married. I never said I condoned what they were doing. I simply said that if you took their arrangement (a loving, monogamous relationship, and put it on the altar before God, you would come up with the true definition of marriage.)

You may think I am not following Christ's ministry, but Jesus did not berate and belittle everyone for not accepting Him. He invited people. You seem to think that you can shame people into accepting Him, I prefer to love them into it.

I have not been wishy washy in any way about my beliefs and I'm pretty sure "my girls" have actually been reading what I have written.

I don't think they are taking you seriously because you put them on the defensive.

And while I often refer to something that you wrote, I am not putting words into your mouth.
I am simply making observations and giving my own slant on the topic. This is after all, what a blog is all about. I have not once, criticized your way of doing things, and yet you consistently correct me in front of everyone. Counterproductive for people on supposedly on the same side, don't you think? If I feel attacked by you and we are theoretically on the same side, I can't imagine what people on the other side feel like.

I'll say again, Jesus died with His arms OPEN, inviting people to come to Him, not hammering them over the head. You do it your way. I have no problem with that. But please stop chastising me for doing it mine. I have not yet resorted to telling you what I think of your methods because I respect your right to use them, but I will if I am pushed enough. Let's don't make this a fight between you and me, but instead a "fight" together for the Truth.
MK

"Ingrid, no assumption was made on my part about Danielle's uncle."

Yes, it was. You stated that a man who has been together with his girlfriend for 30 years and is father of 3 children, didn't marry her because he wants to way to sneak out easily. You said: "And, if it's just a piece of paper, what man would not do the paper. What's he holding back for? Maybe the ability to walk away without consequence?"

You're not only insulting us as pro-choicers, you give pro-lifers a bad name. You called us idiots, spoiled brats and other things. Okay, fine. We can take that. We're getting used to it, really.

But don't try to insult a man you don't know anything about except "he's not married so he must be eeeeeevil!" and then claim you didn't. That's just poor.

MK,

Point made and accepted.

Have a blessed weekend.

God is good.

His Man where did you hear the ridiculous proposition that the transmission of HIV began with a sexual encounter between a man and a monkey? That has never even been proposed in the scientific community. The widely accepted theory is that SIV was transmitted when a hunter was either bitten by an infected chimpanzee or cut himself while butchering one. The SIV then became active in the human as HIV.

"Conversely, if they never say the words before witnesses, even if they stay together for 30 years and "love" (I assume lust and not agape love) each other, they have never been married in God's eyes."

Umm could you please either cite this from the Bible or stop repeating it, because it is absolutely not true. Adam and Eve didnt say any vows and they didnt have any witnesses. Do you think a pope just popped up in the garden for the express purpose of marrying them? No. Just like when Isaac "married" Rebekah: he took her into the tent and "she became his wife." (Genesis 24:66) They didnt have a preacher, either. They were considered "married" because they consummated their union.

SamanthaT:

Wrong one more time. Where did you go to school?

You said: "His Man where did you hear the ridiculous proposition that the transmission of HIV began with a sexual encounter between a man and a monkey? That has never even been proposed in the scientific community. The widely accepted theory is that SIV was transmitted when a hunter was either bitten by an infected chimpanzee or cut himself while butchering one. The SIV then became active in the human as HIV."

The key word is accepted. The point is no one really knows for sure. However, it would seem more politically correct to accept your version rather than mine, since I wouldn't expect people who are typically pro-death and therefore, pro-homosexual, to accept the truth that AIDS started with a more-likely and very immoral act of bestiality (given the stuff these people do) BETWEEN A MAN AND A MONKEY. Something even a person like you couldn't stomach and therefore, would have to change the truth of, by committee of course. Ever read "Lord of the Flies"?

Why expect anything different from you and people like you? You change the meaning of what a baby in the womb is. You change the definiton of abortion as not being murder, you say that homosexuality is natural, etc., etc., etc.

I am not surprised though. God knew about your kind when He wrote in the 1st Chapter of Romans when He said, "21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their THINKING became futile and their FOOLISH hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be WISE, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."

Maybe abortion = pro-death = pro-murder = anti-life = pro-homosexuality = pro-bestiality? But, I don't think you would admit to that either.

SamanthaT:

Wrong again.....and again,.. and again....
And your comments about Isaac and Rebekah:

Be careful how you blaspheme God's word. The story of Isaac and Rebeka is so pregnant (if I dare use that word around you) with symbolism your desparate use of the passage to somehow try to degrade the definition of marriage is appalling.

Let me ask you a few questions:

Do you know who Eleazer was and who he represented and the symbolism of Abraham sending him out?

What about Isaac. What was his story?

Any significance to Isaac's mother's death?

Do you know what the Negev symbolizes?

Exactly how many camels did Rebekah water and how many gallons of water did she have to transport by hand and what does that mean?

What were the gifts given to Rebekah symbols of?

What about the blessing made over Rebekah? What does that mean?

HisMan,
"Maybe abortion = pro-death = pro-murder = anti-life = pro-homosexuality = pro-bestiality? But, I don't think you would admit to that either."

I think a much more accurate assertion would be to say that you are pro-bigotry, pro-misquoting the Bible to "prove" your own archaic and misguided and chauvenistic opinions, pro-ignorance, and pro-Christian supremacy.

SamanthaT:

Wrong again.

How did I misquote the Bible? I let the Bible speak for itself. Maybe, according to you, the Bible mis-quotes itself because it doesn't agree with goddess SamanthaT's construct of the world?

So, you really aren't pro-abortion after all?

I'm archaic? Let's see, married 31 years, three businesses, 5 beautiful children, one an Air Force pilot graduate of the USAF Academy (owns own house) who has flown F16s, T1As. T37s, T38s and E8s, another a youth Ministry/Bible degree graduate and runs his own company (owns own house), a soon-to-be graduate engineer (owns own house), a beautiful and I mean beautiful, abstinence based high school senior daughter who puts my views to shame, i.e., loves God with all her heart, soul, and mind...national champion cheerleader, dancer, future teacher, and a 10 year old boy who wants to be a world evangelist against abortion.......No drugs, a few beers now and then, no sex, no abortion, no hoosexuality, no divorce, all believers in God..

Now, what's your definition of modern? Does it go like this? Pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, has had numerous sex partners prior to marriage, probably been treated for STDs, possibly a drug and/or alcohol abuser, parents divorced, in debt up to ankles, does not know what to believe in except of course that all pervasive "choice thing", lost and without a clue....if that's modern....you can keep it.

I'm pro-truth and pro-logic.

In fact, here you go, and you can quote me...."pro-abortion = pro-death = pro-murder = anti-life = pro-homosexuality = pro-bestiality."

I choose life and if God wants to bless me and my family for that choice go complain to Him.

It's impossible to have a civilized discussion with you, isn't it?
What makes you say, "pro-abortion = pro-death = pro-murder = anti-life = pro-homosexuality = pro-bestiality"? Why is homosexuality = bestiality? Why is it anti-life?

"Now, what's your definition of modern?"
I don't know about Samatha, but mine is: my parents (married 22 years), two children, both successful HS graduates, I plan to go to law school while my brother will start college as political sciences major in fall. We're not rich - in fact, my parents have debts - but we're happy. I love my "modern" family. Stop judging everyone who disagrees with you.

Ingrid,

What aboout all the other, ugh, ugh, you know stuff I mentioned about the qualifiers for modern v. archaic. Ok, 5 out of 10 ain't bad.

Do I have to draw a picture? Since you asked why homosexuality is bestiality and anti-life, I will answer.

Homosexual sex involves a man piercing another man's body with his penis. An attempt is being made, intentional or otherwise, to plant a seed in a place where it will never be able to germinate and grow and reproduce itself. To a farmer that would be real, real, real stupid. Where? In the canal where waste exits the man's body more commonly known as the rectum. There is absolutely no chance of a human being ever being conceived in that scenario, that's a law created by God. Similarly, bestiality involves a man having sex with an animal. No chance ever of a human life being conceived in that scenario either, that's a law created by God also. Now SamanthaT can phenotype that, I'm sure. In fact, the origin of AIDS, contrary to what Ms. political correctness, science-by-committee Ms. SamanthaT preaches, was the result of a man having sex with a monkey and NOT eating a monkey. (There you guys go again, always trying to change the facts because you're too ashamed to admit to them. I mean kill a baby, having sex with a monkey, what could be wrong with that for a pro-deather?)

So, it seems to me if you take away one of the God-given purposes of sex, i.e., to create life and, substitute the desire for self-indulgent pleasure, that homosexuality and bestiality are one and the same: same motive, same result, which taken to their ultimate conclusion results in the death of the species (something about extrapolation).

Civilized discussions are held between I assume two civilized people. Pro-deathers are not civilized, in fact, they are the very definition of barbaric. So, yes, it is impossible for me, a pro-lifer, to have a civilized discussion with you, a pro-deather.

We can still have a discussion though, so that you may someday, see the light and be saved. You're worth it to me at least and I will keep telling you the truth without compromise until you wake up.

By the way, have you ever thought of becoming a fetal rights attorney? Those women rights'/pro-death attorneys are a dime a dozen and so, so boring. I think most of them are lesbians anyway and most are not very attractive. You know, brush cut, suit, tie, and real, real ugly. Please, please don't tell me.