In 1950, this quiz (for women) appeared in the comic book “Boy Meets Girl” issue #3. See the rest of the quiz, and the answers (although they are upside down and you really don't need them, do you?) at Gamma Squad. Link -via Buzzfeed
Kill marriage, burn it, and scatter its ashes.
Women initiate divorce in droves, voting with their feet for its uselessness.
Men are learning that offering a woman an option to steal your children and financially enslave you for years is, in all likelihood, a bad bet.
Men, if you know what's good for you, avoid marriage at all costs.
Women are empowered and independent, except when they find themselves in divorce court. That's when the state helps them rape you and your children again and again.
Ah, the good ol' days, weren't they grand? Stuff like this makes me gag.
But on the other hand... Mjay, bitter much?
Just so you know it's not always the husband that gets take in the divorce. But it is funny how many of the conversions that were in the article sound so much my ex and I. Guess I wasn't ready for marriage, or maybe he was a douche that kept comparing me to his mother. Either way, it was a costly mistake.
@mjay: Agreed+Well said. And it's because we still have laws on the books & treat marriage as if it occurs in 1600s Holland/England.
Women are no longer indigent. Men no longer 'take possession' of them from their families, without whom -or a husband, they would be at the mercy of the world at-large (hence things like the 1800s scene in Whitechapel, London)
They can: Have jobs, Own property, Be educated, Vote, Be considered of equal standing in a court of law, Earn income from property or financial instruments, Graduate 4-year college in greater %s than men, or even Out-Earn 20-something men when single in large metro areas like New York.
-And still the courts give them things they didn't earn themselves and treat them like potential unemployed indigents with things like Alimony, Palimony, or poorly-policed Child Support.
Only solution I can think of is Cohabitation Agreement w/ no marriage; -not even prenup-marriage.
I think my mother-in-law would ace this test. She was married in the 1970's and is still stuck in the 1950's. My wife and I are on the other end of the scale, both College educated with graduate degrees and I am the stay at home parent. To bad I failed the test. Oh, we celebrate our 17th anniversary this summer.
Marriage was never predicated on anything but a compromise with the sinful nature. I know the popular and traditional sentiment is that marriage is a holy sanctuary backed by God, but that is patently false when one examines the references to it in the actual Bible.
Marriage is a compromise with lust, so that the passions may be directed to one individual, rather than something like polygynandry or sodomy. It was a way of confining sexual lust to control for it's destructive properties, which include social as well as health reasons.
But, it says that "at the resurrection" which is that period of being "born again" after the "circumcision", people will not be taken in marriage or given in marriage. Because they will already be purified of all egotism.
Yea, I know, nobody reads the Bible. I mean virtually nobody even those who claim to. They read what they want.
Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others have been made eunuchs; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it. Matthew 19: 11
You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Matthew 22: 29
^^These verses are attributed to Jesus^^
This passage is attributed to Peter:
1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
- 1 Corinthians 7
It can be humorous how much both Christians and Atheists cherry-pick and twist the Bible according to their desires.
Women initiate divorce in droves, voting with their feet for its uselessness.
Men are learning that offering a woman an option to steal your children and financially enslave you for years is, in all likelihood, a bad bet.
Men, if you know what's good for you, avoid marriage at all costs.
Women are empowered and independent, except when they find themselves in divorce court. That's when the state helps them rape you and your children again and again.
Stuff like this makes me gag.
But on the other hand...
Mjay, bitter much?
Just so you know it's not always the husband that gets take in the divorce.
But it is funny how many of the conversions that were in the article sound so much my ex and I. Guess I wasn't ready for marriage, or maybe he was a douche that kept comparing me to his mother. Either way, it was a costly mistake.
Women are no longer indigent.
Men no longer 'take possession' of them from their families, without whom -or a husband, they would be at the mercy of the world at-large (hence things like the 1800s scene in Whitechapel, London)
They can:
Have jobs,
Own property,
Be educated,
Vote,
Be considered of equal standing in a court of law,
Earn income from property or financial instruments,
Graduate 4-year college in greater %s than men,
or even Out-Earn 20-something men when single in large metro areas like New York.
-And still the courts give them things they didn't earn themselves and treat them like potential unemployed indigents with things like Alimony, Palimony, or poorly-policed Child Support.
Only solution I can think of is Cohabitation Agreement w/ no marriage; -not even prenup-marriage.
Now I get it.
//no I don't//
Me, too, Brother!
Marriage is a compromise with lust, so that the passions may be directed to one individual, rather than something like polygynandry or sodomy. It was a way of confining sexual lust to control for it's destructive properties, which include social as well as health reasons.
But, it says that "at the resurrection" which is that period of being "born again" after the "circumcision", people will not be taken in marriage or given in marriage. Because they will already be purified of all egotism.
Yea, I know, nobody reads the Bible. I mean virtually nobody even those who claim to. They read what they want.
Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others have been made eunuchs; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it. Matthew 19: 11
You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Matthew 22: 29
^^These verses are attributed to Jesus^^
This passage is attributed to Peter:
1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
- 1 Corinthians 7
It can be humorous how much both Christians and Atheists cherry-pick and twist the Bible according to their desires.