The NZA Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 Guys wearing dresses is not dignifiying to the guy, so therefore he shouldn't do it. ...you realize its not just those silly scots who wear the kilts, traditionally, right? I'm just sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 Aye'! I hear ye laddy. Kilts are diffrerent from skirts tho. Kilts are manly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 What is it that makes dresses undignified for a man, but not for a woman? It's just a little piece of cloth between the upper inner thigh that really defines the difference. It's just a matter of culture. Culture is fluid and ever-changing, but morality, as you so uncompromisingly atest, is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Like I just said... Kilts are fine... They're manly. Masculine. Skirts/dresses/other female wear isn't. It's like... Women and men wear underwear. Men wear briefs or boxers, women wear panties. If a guy wants to go around in a kilt, it's fine because it's manly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 No, see, I disagree with your other points, but you are actually making an argument when you do make your other points. This isn't even making an argument. Are you againt women wearing pants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 As long as they're bought from the women's part of the store... No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 But women weren't always socially alowed to wear pants. For a long time, it was more taboo that it would be for a man to wear a dress today. When Amelia Bloomer became the first woman to define social convention and when something that resembled pants (what were later called Bloomers, named after her), she was critisized (more like ostrisized) for it. Was it morally wrong before, but morally OK today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signal08 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 I'm not following the 'as long as the pants were bought from the woman's side of the store'... I dont see how one is wrong, but the other is ok... it's a pant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Jax - If the pants were made for women and looked effeminate, then they were fine. Just took us getting used to it. Masculine clothes for men, feminine clothes for women, unisex stuff for everybody. Signal - I know, but there's men sizes, and women sizes.. Men's pants were made for men... Women's pants were made for their shape... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Masculine clothes for men, feminine clothes for women, unisex stuff for everybody. But masculine and feminine are constantly changing and completely fluid definitions. That not concrete and the morality which you claim to be speaking about isn't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Nope. Masculine and feminine may be changing according to culture, but some stuff will always be masculine, and some stuff feminine. For example... How can you argue for guys to beable to wear a bra? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signal08 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 so mans pant made for man...what if a certain woman fit better in a mans pant? Don't tell me she is sinning...just being comfortable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signal08 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 (edited) I think people look too deeply into issues. You see a woman wearing a guys pair of jeans, I see a woman wearing jeans that she fits into better. Edited September 20, 2004 by Signal08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 If it's to fit better, then fine. But never to wear what the other gender wears, unless it's something unisexual. Guys should wear masculine clothing, and Girls should wear feminine clothing. Or both can wear unisexual stuff. The idea of cross dressing is to wear what the other gender wears, and look like your oppisite sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganny McVagflaps Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Stoopid question.... Proverbs 31 Sayings of King Lemuel 1 The sayings of King Lemuel-an oracle [1] his mother taught him: 2 "O my son, O son of my womb, O son of my vows, [2] 3 do not spend your strength on women, your vigor on those who ruin kings. 4 "It is not for kings, O Lemuel- not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, 5 lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. 6 Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; 7 let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more. Does that mean that random punters like me should slug all the wine and beer we can get our hands on...? p.s. I'm not joking - I really wanna know what the score is here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobitussinEF Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 I got a question for ya. How does this work. My bf's been married before through the Catholic church and hes divorced. From what I understand once you marry in a Catholic church they go by til death do you part. So does this mean I have no chance of ever being married in a Church? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Just so happens this falls into my area of expertise. Canon Law. You're going to have to get your boyfriend to hire a Canon Lawyer for this. I myself am not one as of yet, and I do not know any in Miami. I know people who know people though. Get yourself and him invloved with Emmaus. They know who to contact for these kinds of things. Basically, here's the Canons that you would use to prove your case, so long as they are what your boyfriend's condition is: CHAPTER IV : MATRIMONIAL CONSENT Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage: 1° those who lack sufficient use of reason; 2° those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted; 3° those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Can. 1096 §1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation. §2 This ignorance is not presumed after puberty. Can. 1097 §1 Error about a person renders a marriage invalid. §2 Error about a quality of the person, even though it be the reason for the contract, does not render a marriage invalid unless this quality is directly and principally intended. Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life. Can. 1099 Provided it does not determine the will, error concerning the unity or the indissolubility or the sacramental dignity of marriage does not vitiate matrimonial consent. If your boyfriend falls into any of these Canons, then you've got a good case for an Annulment. An Annulment is a declaration that his previous Marriage was false, invalid, and not a Sacrament. Then it is as though he was never Married, and would be free to Marry you in the Church. Best Wishes, Benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Also, 2Track - You are free to drink and smoke, so long as you do so responsibly, not to get drunk, or in a gluttonous manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobitussinEF Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Thank you Benny! i will def. save this for any future reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 No problem, happy to help! There are other Canons that can be involved with Marriage, but these are the ones people typically use for Annulments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TulipO Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Benny, recently the evil bitch my dad married pushed him to get an annulment from my mother. The Church granted him one because he was 19 when he and my mother got married. But how can this really apply when there are two children from that union? And does the fact of my dad's annulment render my sister and I illegitimate in the eyes of the Church? Just curious... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 haha...good question. Benny, why would tussin need a cannon lawyer? wouldnt she just need the marriage annuled through the church; ive heard of this done sans lawyer....that, or you know, a drink or two to get her out of the whole marriage bit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 nobody has to worry anymore. My friends want me to become ordained by the Universal Life Church to eventually get them married. But I can also forgive your sins and divorce you as well. So go out and sin and then come to me and make amends. Then you can go out and sin again, over and over and over!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobitussinEF Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 haha...good question. Benny, why would tussin need a cannon lawyer? wouldnt she just need the marriage annuled through the church; ive heard of this done sans lawyer....that, or you know, a drink or two to get her out of the whole marriage bit... Because the Catholic Church doesnt divorce you just like that. Cause its a union of death til you part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 (edited) "a union of death"?! I hope you meant to say, a union of "till death do you part" Edited December 8, 2004 by dante Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.