It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow,
And dart not scornful glances from those eyes,
To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor:
It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads,
Confounds thy fame as whirlwinds shake fair buds,
And in no sense is meet or amiable.
A woman moved is like a fountain troubled,
Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty;
And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty
Will deign to sip or touch one drop of it.
Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance commits his body
To painful labour both by sea and land,
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks and true obedience;
Too little payment for so great a debt.
Such duty as the subject owes the prince
Even such a woman oweth to her husband;
And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour,
And not obedient to his honest will,
What is she but a foul contending rebel
And graceless traitor to her loving lord?
I am ashamed that women are so simple
To offer war where they should kneel for peace;
Or seek for rule, supremacy and sway,
When they are bound to serve, love and obey.
Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth,
Unapt to toil and trouble in the world,
But that our soft conditions and our hearts
Should well agree with our external parts?
Come, come, you froward and unable worms!
My mind hath been as big as one of yours,
My heart as great, my reason haply more,
To bandy word for word and frown for frown;
But now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,
That seeming to be most which we indeed least are.
Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot,
And place your hands below your husband's foot:
In token of which duty, if he please,
My hand is ready; may it do him ease.
Originally posted by jupiter869
I never could understand this issue. It always seemed hypocritical to me that it would be more important to stop some people from getting married rather than preserving the sanctity of existing marriages. Why isn't help though marriage counceling and the mortal sin of divorce emphisized more often?
Perhaps church leaders are unable or unwilling to deal with the real crime against marriage divorce.
The only fact here is...IF we determined that marriage success rate WAS a valid point for deciding this issue, then it would certantly NOT be favorable to say in essence.."lets allow MORE people to do something that so often fails." Why would you want to support gay marriage by saying that? Thats arguing "the system is broken, yet we still want to use it."
It is a vaild argument people are prepared to overlook certain issues because it dosnt suit them to face up to the facts.
Are non married or divorced people less of a citizen because they are not married?
Indeed you didnt say this,
Nope I never said single people were second class citizens. Your reading something thats not there I was refering to current marriages.
NO, it only gives them entitlments (not rights) that another special intrest group has....weather that group constitutes 1% or 75% of the society is irrelavent as not all citizens are, desire to, or ever will be married.
Giving same sexs couples the right to marry would give a minority the rights the rights the majority have.
Yes it would prevent marriage as what marriage means would be soo diluted it would no longer be marriage. This situation is only aggravated because it would result from a small minority imposing itself onto the generally accepted cultural identity. If this is ram-rodded onto society as it has been tried so far (california case ring a bell) then it would be devicive and subversive as well. Backlash often results from use of tactics like these, even IF the cause seems just.
The minority would not prevent the majority from getting married. Preventing same sex marriage divides society unnecessarily.
well in short YES. This is because it is their special intrest groups "system" to "damage". (see damage above...again damage assumed) Why is it ok for others not part of this S.I.M.G. to tell another S.I.M.G. how to deal with their system or that they have to fix/alter/or include them in any of it? Doesnt this seem a little pushy, and like sticking your nose into their groups business to demand they accept your selfish wish?
So its okay for one group of people to damage the "system" of marriage while denying another group of people the chance to marry?
Originally posted by CazMedia
How can the government garuntee you a spouse (let alone a successful marriage). If it IS a civil right, then again...all those that arent married for whatever reason would be having their civil rights violated as they wouldnt be "as equal" as those in a marriage.
Why don't we let men into womens only programs, or a white head the NAACP, or a know anti gay person become the head of a local gay organization? The answer is both the 1rst amendment right to assembly and common sense.
Any society has the RIGHT to self determine what values it wishes to expouse as a culture. This means that the culture can FOR ANY REASON decide that adopting any ideology (or not adopting it in this case) into the culture on an institutional basis (meaning in laws, cultural recognitions like holidays, entitlements etc) is right for them as a whole.
Who are you or anyone to tell this group that they are wrong, bigoted, or pass judgment on them? Under the 1rst amendment, they have the right to gather as they please, without interference from others that do not expose that groups core values. Isnt that a bitch? You cant force yourself (ideologically speaking) onto them, and they can say no thanks, not for our group.
Originally posted by CazMedia
Are non married or divorced people less of a citizen because they are not married? Arent they being discriminated against because they arent married either? Marriage is a choice not a right.
Originally posted by xpert11
As to the issue of VALUE of marriage. Again, while people may think less of being married, this does not change what it means to be married, or what marriage is defined as. The value of gold changes daily, does that mean that it becomes "less gold"?
Your comparing apples with oranges you cant put a price on marriage. Marriage is a bond between two people and when people put an end to that bond then the marriage becomes meaningless.
EXACTLY THE POINT!
Since did the government gurantee anyone a spouse?
Hmm how about the majority of citizens that in 13 states that just passed laws defining marriage in this manner. This is in addition to a handfull of other states that also already had this as law (like california, which is why the attempts in san fran by the mayor and his pocket judge that tried to STEAL away the democratic marority of californians that voted and passed a law defining marriage were such a big deal. they in essence tried to hijack the democracy in that state...are you for hijacking and circumvention of democracy, other citizens rights, and the legal process?)
who is to say that marriage is between a man and a women?