Posted on 04/30/2011 2:38:35 PM PDT by marshmallow
The Archbishop of York has given his backing to Prince William and Kate Middleton’s decision to live together before marriage.
The Archbishop of York backed Prince William and Kate Middleton’s decision to live together before marriage, saying that many modern couples want to “test the milk before they buy the cow”.
Dr John Sentamu argued that the royal couple’s public commitment to live their lives together today would be more important than their past.
But Anglican traditionalists criticised the Archbishop, the second most senior cleric in the Church of England, for failing to reinforce Christian teaching which prohibits sex outside marriage.
The row came as Prince William and Kate Middleton unveiled their choices for the royal wedding service, which include classically British music and hymns, and an updated choice of marriage vows in which the bride omits the word “obey”.
In a television interview, Dr Sentamu was asked whether it was appropriate for the Prince, who is in line to become head of the Church of England as King, to have been living with his bride before marriage.
He said he had conducted wedding services for “many cohabiting couples” during his time as a vicar in south London.
“We are living at a time where some people, as my daughter used to say, they want to test whether the milk is good before they buy the cow,” he said. “For some people that’s where their journeys are.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
If you need to live with your girlfriend/boyfriend to learn that they are abusive, I’m simply shocked.
Then seek comfort without him.
I find it amusing that the boomer generation dumped this garbage on us, and continues to try to justify their bad habits.
;it doesn’t seem to be have been important that a woman derived any sexual pleasure”
Wholly false. You need only look at the ‘estasy of St. Theresa’ to see the truth.
The argument is not that the woman denies herself sexual pleasure outside of marriage, but that she deprives herself from the sexual pleasure to be had in marriage.
No, considering the article that started this entire discussion was about religion and the Bible --- or did you fail to notice that? Just as you failed to notice you were only a secondary name on my post, out of courtesy, and not the main person to whom I was responding?
It kind of .......... isn't pleasant when you realize vulgarity is totally unnecessary to attempt to make a point in a discussion, isn't it?
HUH?
The church of what’s happening now.
Actually, I addressed the narrow subject of the wisdom of a parent teaching his daughter to allow herself to be sampled. You brought in your certitude that God will forgive non-repented sins.
My vulgarity served to cut to the heart of the matter. Mission accomplished.
Women who live together with men outside of marriage are insane. And have no self-respect.I agree with you! A woman is afraid of losing her man, but any guy that would ditch a woman just because she won't have sex with him, ain't worth the lady's time. Wait 'til you're married gals. It's a gift to your husband that he will appreciate not just on his wedding night, but forever. And the reverse holds true as well. And for those who have messed up in this regard, that's why Catholics have Confession. (Great faith for sinners!)
I very much dreaded an out-of-wedlock pregnancy because without ever talking about teenage sex in our household, I knew that would bring shame on both me and my parents.
I've had plenty of years to ponder the failure of my marriage and will mention one because I've never seen it applied in modern times. Obedience to parents. There are more commandments than the 6th and 9th. Over a period of four years, I defied them and eventually wore them down. They relented and I got married, but I always knew they had wanted better for me.
So one mistake can cause a lifetime of pain, even if you have repented of it. Actions have consequences. And my children have paid and are paying for the consequences of their choices even though they have some good times. Naturally, loving them as I have, their mistakes add to the cumulative pain of my own.
And don't think the divorce didn't cause my children pain, a great deal of it, some of which was not my fault, because it did, even though as adults, they now understand why it was for the best.
Charles and Diane's wedding had better toasts:
Here's to the Royal Couple.
Drink up!
Drink up!
Drink up Chuck and Di!
Well, from seeing the problem from my patients I can tell you: the problem with living together is that the woman sees it as a prelude to marriage, and the guy sees it as...living together.
And, of course, often the girl is stuck doing the housework etc. and changing her life to fit his desires (and alas too many are so stupid as to be the one who not only does the housework, but works and supports the guy).
So when the couple would come into my office, and I asked their relationship, the woman would often say “My fiance” and the man “My girlfriend”.
In a lot of cases, the girl is abandoned when she “accidentally” gets pregnant...
This insecurity, knowing the guy wants you but not enough to care for you in pregnancy or times of trouble, leads the girl to be insecure, so when they marry, all the anger she has hidden inside (for fear he’s leave) comes out and voila, divorce.
Older couples who are divorced often live together because they don’t trust marriage and want to stay independent...both in money and life.
Often for these folks, it’s the woman who is in no hurry to marry, for fear of being stuck in a passive relatsionship where she has to sacrifice her hard won freedom (money and emotional) to his good. Not sure what happens when he gets old and sick...I have not run into a lot of heterosexual unmarried couples who nurse each other through a long debilitation final illness.
I’m old enough, however, to see one advantage to living together: I’m old enough to remember when a lot of closet gays married to cover up their attraction to the same sex. Often the spouse ended up depressed and not understanding why the spouse didn’t find them attractive.
This is the best argument I can see for “gay marriage”: That “religioius” gays will marry each other, not exploit a naive young woman to get cured. Yes, “gay marriage” is a “sin”, but what about the women and children who suffer in such a loveless marriage, the woman (or in one case, a man) often blaming herself for the problem, and the children soured on marriage.
I did? That's odd, as that is not something I believe at all.
As to your vulgarity, it only served to tell me you have a mission to prove your difficulty expressing yourself without it. You accomplished your mission.
Then you pose a question which would require soul searching on those to whom it would apply to answer honestly. I don't know how I would answer it were that I. What I do know well is feeling guilt. Which brings us back to a question I posed which no one has attempted to answer. In short, why no evidence of guilt, not that it would always be easy to detect outwardly, but sometimes it definitely is?
These young people seem to feel no sense of shame or guilt. The secular world has tried to wean us away from most of it. Indeed, you see young women who are proud of having children out of wedlock (or shacking up). So what happened between my generation and theirs?
All that being said, I'm glad society generally doesn't give the the Scarlet Letter treatment either. But consciously depriving one's children of a two-parent home, that can have negative consequences as well what we've been thrashing around here.
I don't need studies to show me that almost overwhelmingly, children from two-parent homes have seemed to fare better in life. Some, sooner or later, no matter how bad the start, do manage to mature and learn from their parent(s)' mistakes.
You wrote:
“simple for you this, if you make a stupid claim then back it up with independent sources, simple”
It’s even more simple than that: I DIDN’T MAKE THE CLAIM. Hopefully you will one day learn to read. With your performance thus far, that seems unlikely.
So I don't know if I'm entirely wrong or not. All I have to go by are what I've read of how it was in the past. Many marriages were contractual; some father's respected their daughter's wishes, and some didn't. Since I didn't live in those times, I can only glean little of what was discussed privately, what women knew, and how they came to know it.
I'll be brutally blunt. There are marriages where either the wife cannot achieve an orgasm, sometimes not at all, and husbands who are physically incapable or know how to satisfy their wives or partners sexually.
I have three married cousins, a widowed sister and an engaged cousin. None of them cohabited. Not a scientific sample of course, just my 2 cents.
You wrote:
“...if for nothing else than the fact that our beautiful daughter loves Him and His Word because of the way she is being raised.”
I believe you are sincere, but here’s the problem: How can you be raising her right if you’re telling her she can have sex before marriage (if she goes by your example)? No where in scripture, or tradition, do you find any support for that. Saying that to you is not sanctimony on our part. It is simply the truth.
“I personally find sanctimony a far worse sin than cohabiting.”
Sexual sins are not the worst sins. Murder, of course, is worse than fornication. But that doesn’t mean fornication isn’t a sin.
It is stunning to me how people who consider themselves Christians routinely deny that sin is sin. Then again: http://www.amazon.com/Nobody-Calls-Anymore-Kenneth-Roberts/dp/0879739150
Sexual sins are not the worst sins. Murder, of course, is worse than fornication. But that doesn’t mean fornication isn’t a sin.Over fifty million babies in heaven agree with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.