Leaderboard

I think it's inappropriate. One aspect of responsible gun ownership, is abiding by the wishes of private property owners who make it crystal clear that they do not want firearms on their property.

Maybe we should come up with safe-harbor laws for how we can be sure that a property owner really means what has already given every indication of having meant. We could call it--I dunno--"yes means yes", or something. With a little more seriousness: Sure, I wouldn't throw a tantrum about a biomedical technician with a petri dish full of bacteria or a demolition worker with a stick of dynamite. I'd just say "hey, I know you're a careful guy, but I'd prefer that stuff not be brought into my home". My effort to be civil and low-key, and my acknowledgement that these materials can theoretically be handled safely, should not be read as any sort of tacit permission to bring dynamite, or toxic bacteria, or a firearm into my home after I've point-blank told you I don't want it there. It doesn't matter that you think you do (or maybe even actually do) know how to defend my home better than I do. It's simple respect--my house, my rules. And although I'm pretty pro-2nd Amendment, I get real scared when gun owners decide that their right to a gun trumps my right to my own property. Because you justify an awful lot with that sort of precedent. (And frankly, I have had an experience with a CCW coming into my home (well, my in-laws' home), bringing his loaded firearm with him, and then setting it on the table and engaging us in conversation even though there were five kids under seven running around the house at the time. So, this is kind of a tender spot for me. Gun-owners shouldn't need to be told (twice) to respect the homeowner and not to be dipweeds.) In point of fact, the Mormons at Haun's Mill did have firearms. But, at Far West they didn't; so I do get your point. But then, if you think I'm asking you not to bring guns into my home so that I can beat you, rape your wife, and shoot your kids--well, maybe it would be prudent not to come to my house at all.

Hi Needleina, You might want to check out this recent thread. I'll restate what I said there. I'm halfway active in various LDS concealed-carry circles. The policy in the handbook is often passionately discussed. Here's a smattering of opinions on it: * It says "carrying is inappropriate", not sinful, not prohibited, so I guess I'll just be inappropriate.* I spoke to my bishop about it, and he's grateful to hear I'm willing to carry at church and fully supportive.* I spoke to my bishop about it, and he confirmed I should not be carrying.* As long as I raise my arm to the square and sustain my leaders, my gun won't be with me at church. Basically, LDS conceal-carriers' opinions are all over the map on whether it's appropriate to carry at church or not. Now, a local mega-church/homeschool co-op in my area had a mass killing a few years back. They adopted a position I support and would like to see in our church:- Strongly worded zero-tolerance policy regarding firearms. Immediate consequences (sanctions, disciplinary action, suspension of students/termination of workers. Immediate police involvement if a firearm is present.)- Exceptions are on-duty police, licensed church safety persons, and others authorized and permitted under relevant state and county laws (here in Colorado, it's C.C.R.S. 18-12-203). The policy helps those who think a written policy is the best response feel safe, because the policy is so strongly worded. It also helps people actually be safe, by allowing authorized folks to carry.

with the way it's worded it gives stake presidents and bishops some wiggle room.

I think you are correct in this assessment. However, I also think there are lesser and greater reasons for Church attendence. If people go to Church with the expectation to be welcomed as a sister or brother and spiritually fed, that is reasonable. If they go to Church because they expect those things, that is perhaps not as good. If they go to Church with the firm conviction that it is where they belong and with the determination to find spiritual nourishment and provide brotherly or sisterly companionship, I think that is best. I also don't think TFP was writing anyone off. I am afraid this conversation has begun generating more heat than light.

Hello Everyone! Decided to no longer lurk behind the scenes and actually participate instead. Great discussions so far and I've really enjoyed all the varied comments, deep thinkers and humor I have read so far. So a little about me: 1. Never have and never will win any kind of grammer or spellin award. 2. Baptized at age 8 around 5:00pm. Barfed on a merry-go-round shortly afterwards around 6:30. 3. Fortunate enough to have lived all around the states and abroad. 4. A closeted (until now) electronic/dubstep listening High Priest. 5. Proud Family man 6. Defender of the Faith 7. Got my Mormon.org profile picture rejected because it wasn't what they were looking for (I was holding a pet snake). 8. Married way out of my league. (score!) 9. Smart enough to realize everything isn't always black and white, so I love reading everyone's thoughts on here. 10. Hoping to live long enough to go on a senior couple's missionary assignment. (still a ways to go). Again, thanks for all the great threads, doctrine digging, and fun so far!!

I always carry a gun. Nobody has ever asked me not to come to their homes without it. As for this person. They are an idiot. I hope you told them to secure their weapon properly. That person is not the norm among gun owners.

Let me discuss for a moment why I believe understanding that testimony and faith are the important and appropriate parts of the equation (and the underlying root of the issue). First: Life is hard and we will all face extreme challenges throughout. We will all be tested to our limits. That is what life is for. We are here to find out if we will endure through the trials of life and remain faithful in spite of those trials. Whatever those trials may be, financial ruin, health, death of loved ones, relationship problems with family/members/bishop, confusion about historical issues, etc., the trial remains. Will we stay faithful? The challenge is not to remove the challenges. Now I know that comes across a bit strange when applied to the issue at hand. And I would not and do not advocate by that that we should intentionally create problems. We should never purposefully hurt others. But that is different than a realization that these things are going to happen, and dealing with them is part of life. If we are dealing one-on-one with a jerk, it behooves us to try and help them by whatever means we appropriately can (as led by the Spirit) to not be a jerk. If we are dealing with one who has let their faithfulness falter because someone else was a jerk, it behooves us to try and help them by whatever means we appropriately can (as led by the Spirit) to not let such things affect their faithfulness. This sort of promotion is perfectly in line with the teachings of our Savior, who taught us plainly to turn the other cheek, to walk twain, to give them our coat, and to forgive until ninety times nine. Moreover, from our direct ability to affect other's lives, how can we expect to change the millions (particularly with a condemnatory post on an internet forum) vs. our ability to affect an individual who has been hurt or betrayed. And how can we possibly help the person who has been hurt or betrayed by embracing the "Yeah...it's all their fault. I'd go inactive too! You can only put up with so much!" sort of sentiment, rather than the actual teachings of the gospel, as partially hinted at above related to Christ's teachings, and plainly taught through a myriad of other principles such as long suffering, humility, and endurance. Really, is it going to more effective to stand up and preach to the members that they need to not be jerks (to which almost every one of them will respond in their minds, "I'm not a jerk", whether they are or not), or to go out after the lost sheep, serve them, love them, bear testimony to them, pray with them, and generally succor them, helping to lead them to humility, forgiveness and understanding? The simple fact is that the only way to help anyone is to help them better embrace humility. This applies to the jerk, and it applies to the one offended by the jerk. But as an effective approach, it strikes me that setting out on a crusade to purge the church of jerks is rather futile. Perhaps, instead, we should set out on a crusade to influence our neighbors, friends, loved ones, and even fellow forum members, one at a time, by the preaching of the plain truths of the gospel, which does include, certainly, the don't be a jerk ideology, but also includes, the forgive, forget, and cling to faithfulness ideology -- which for some strange reason, whenever anyone espouses this side of the coin, seems to draw a befuddling overabundance of contempt and wrath.

It's my understanding that here in Texas, this issue is a moot point: CCW permit holders are prohibited from bringing their weapons into a church.

Lol! Welcome, welcome!

Sure. My point is simply that taking a -- the snake is gonna bite you, so let it DIE!!! -- attitude isn't necessarily always the right thinking. It isn't so black and white. Conversely, I agree, taking a -- always care for the snake even though you know they're a snake and they're going to bite you -- attitude is not always the right thinking.

quite likely. I can see how a situation may arise where such sort of thing might be necessary- and where as that might be necessary for one location it might be totally unnecessary for another. I also appreciate how they also kept to the letter of it by keeping the arms outside of the building.

I have no doubt that you're careful with your firearms. But it just strikes me as common courtesy for me to abide by a property owner's request instead of hiding behind a "gee, I didn't really think you meant it" when I knew darned well what the property owner expected and chose to ignore it. If someone's bringing a gun, or a can of gasoline, or a stick of dynamite, or a sealed petri dish full of Ebola into my house, I wanna know about it--even if the actual risk of catastrophe from such properly-handled items is minimal.

I'm moderately surprised that no one has suggested the actual, you know, Christ-like, turn-the-other-cheek response. Dear Bride, I am so very, very sorry I missed your wedding. Enclosed is the check for the full bill. Please forgive me for my insensitivity. Love, The person To be fair, I'm not saying I'd be humble enough to respond this way...(I hope I would)...but as a principle....

If your religious convictions keep you from performing your job you should get a new job. (assuming of course you can't work with your employer to find a compromise that allows both to be done)

Please note that the church is striving to help families (aka Husbands and Wives) be One as commanded by the Lord. It is not going to endorse actions that can cause greater strife and/or possible divorce... That runs counter to the commandments of the Lord. It is equally true that if the Husband wanted to get baptized and the Wife was against it the council would be, "A husband should respect his wife's wishes," "without the wife's consent," "unless she agree to it," "should respect her position as wife and mother of the family" You can try to slant it as anti-woman if you choose to see it that way, but it is not. It is pro-family and acknowledges that everyone in a relationship has to compromise some individual freedoms to keep the relationship healthy. People are of course free to choose their own course of actions... They will also be held accountable for what they did and the consequence of their actions. If someone destroys their marriage it will not be because the Church encouraged such actions

I'm fine with that policy. As for a thought there is this; God is life and order, a gun is a tool designed for killing and destruction. Another possibility is that our current society is too focused on such things and they have become a golden calf of sorts. edit to add: totally agreeing with JAG as well.

Vort, I would have simply sent the money with a short note -- "Sorry that we missed the wedding, and here's the money for the dinner. PS I may have forgotten to mention this, but that TV we got for you was purchased rent-to-own. We paid the first month, so they won't start billing you until next month -- only twelve easy payments."

Well, I was somewhat misunderstanding your argument to be something along the lines of "when a governmental policy has legal justification, that means it is not oppression". So, thanks for the correction. Nevertheless, from what I can gather, your argument is that people should be free to discriminate based on fear, prejudice, animosity, etc., if they can make a case that they've suffered in the past. Conservative Christians, not having been subject to much suffering over the past few generations and having supposedly inflicted a decent amount of suffering themselves, should therefore just acquiesce to whatever limitations society imposes upon them until society (not the Christians themselves) decides that they've suffered enough. I think we're on firmer ground when we at least aspire to define "oppression" by whether it impugns on some universally-applicable set of natural rights, rather than making situational calls based on which groups have suffered enough versus which groups "have it coming to them". Because frankly, under your definition an oppressor can always justify his behavior with "it's not really THAT bad" or "well, he really had it coming and we're just administering justice for past wrongs". A society ruled by that ethos will, sooner or later, degenerate into civil war as majorities exploit their advantage and minorities decide that death is preferable to whatever fresh hell the majority can dig up. Well, in point of fact the portion of Oaks' remarks that's been getting the most mileage referred specifically to public officials, not private actors in commerce. Sure, there's a difference in degree--as long as you don't quit the sphere to which society relegates you. It's generally when you refuse to accept those limitations that things get really nasty for you--whether you're a gay who won't stay quiet and celibate, or a black person who won't stay on his side of town, or a German teenager who won't keep quiet about the war reports he hears on the BBC, or a conservative Christian who refuses to express support for an evil that is condoned by broader society. Blacks and gays who conformed to social norms during Jim Crow or pre-Lawrence might face ridicule, exclusion from the economic mainstream, and/or the curse of not being able to live "authentically"; but they could theoretically live a lifetime without being fearing any government action more punitive than a speeding ticket. So it is today (or, is becoming) for conservative Christians. No one will fire me--as long as I conform. No one will take my business or my house--as long as I conform. No one will put me in jail--as long as I conform. No one will impose physical harm upon me--as long as I conform. But, if I don't conform--well, Kim Davis' experience reminds us that the prospect of imprisonment is real. The experiences of numerous photographers, bakers, etc. remind us that the prospect of losing one's property is real. The 2008 Texas raid on the YFZ ranch reminds us that the prospect of losing one's children is real. Eric Garner's death reminds us that the prospect of death is real. So the difference in degree is perhaps in some ways, not so very great after all.

UT...no state required vendors to participate in (by providing artistic talent and inspiration) LBGT weddings until the SCOTUS declared such unions a human right. Then, retroactively, an Oregon State agency said vendors must service these events. The baker tried to close shop, and the agency was not having it. You were existence, so your refusal is based in hatred and bigotry. Comply or pay. We can certainly disagree on this. People of faith and good will do. For me, the line where I would permit civil disobedience is in servicing the ceremony that many perceive as inseparable from the spirituality. The First Amendment should mean that people have the right of conscientious objection. We allow draftees to avoid combat for this reason, why require people of faith to participate in a marriage ceremony they oppose, on religious grounds? The answer, imho, is that some in the LBGT community are enraged at religious opposition to their sexual orientation and practice. They consider any opposition to be based in hatred and bigotry, and believe that religion is just a cover. Or, they admit that the religions teach against them, and find such repugnant, and worthy of public condemnation. On a personal note, while I would never officiate an LBGT wedding, I would bake a cake for 'em. And, it would be the most delicious, well-crafted cake I could come up with. My faith allows me to serve my theological enemy (souls are never the enemy) with agape love.

TFP, That is what many members of the church believe that the purpose of the church is, yet that may not be the reason that a particular individual is a member. If you are willing to write them off because they don't hold to that same ideal then I suppose that is your right to do so. All I am saying is that when we tell individuals that this is why they should attend church and their need or reason for belonging is different we should not be surprised when they choose to disassociate.

Not unless you start praying to them and having statues in your home that you idolize.

People like yourself whose response comes across as "Well it's their own fault for being too weak to carry on through."

If only everybody was a clone we wouldn't have these problems.

Another thought I have had on the matter: Why do people stop going to church? Because their needs are not met. We have had some discussion in this very thread about what those needs are. For some it is social, for others spiritual, a sense of community, an ability to commune with the divine, the atonement, a testimony of a living prophet, revealed scripture, and a host of other reasons. I would like to hypothesize that the reason why an individual stops attending is because their needs (whatever those are) are no longer being met by attendance at church. We can belittle individuals because their testimony isn't as strong as ours, isn't the same as ours, or isn't rooted in quite the same way ours is, but if the church isn't meeting their needs they will stop coming. It really is that simple. Now whether or not the church SHOULD address those needs is another question entirely. But the reason people stop coming through the doors on Sunday is the same reason they stop shopping at Home Depot and switch to Menards. The other place better meets their perceived needs...it could be price, it could be customer service, it could be location or any number of other things. We can blame the customer all we like. We can chalk it up to them being offended, not being really converted, being influenced by bad advertising or anti-mormon websites etc., but if you want them to come back through those doors next Sunday then we better identify what their needs are and work to address those. My $.02

If people were so great at that level of strength and faith completely on their own, then church is a waste of time anyway.

That's exactly what people do. They absolve themselves of having to be introspective by laying blame elsewhere and the problem goes on. Having responsibility fixes nothing if one doesn't acknowledge it. Thanks for the snark, by the way. Why bother trying to understand someone else's perspective when you can just use a little sarcasm to dismiss it, eh?

Nostradamus foretold jet fighters too, because he talked about how "the half pig man will find it hard to speak", and fighter pilots have difficulty speaking during high-g maneuvers, and wear those cool helmet things that look like this:

I predict that in the future the apostles will be old. And you can trust me, 'cause I'm the folk "prophet". Get it? The folk "prophet".

I actually gain allot of insight on these forums. I find it odd that someone frequents any forum and claims they don't care what people think, regardless the topic. I can see taking advice with a grain of salt but flat out dismissing everyone's opinions makes me question the purpose of frequenting any forum.

The danger of the "Satan tried to force everyone to do good!" misrepresentation is that it naturally extends to an extreme libertarian/anarchic philosophy. "Laws? They are of SATAN! You can't FORCE me to be good!" How many times have we heard people -- even Saints -- use the idea of "force" to argue against laws such as prohibition of elective abortion? Somehow, such people never seem to mind laws against forcible rape, never mind the onerous restriction on "free agency" that such laws impose.

Perhaps a better thing to get out of this conversation is that, notwithstanding JoJoBag's sincerity and good intentions, the individual items in his list do not, in fact, describe a communist. Many of these items fit very well under the motivations "establish justice" and "promote the general welfare" as named by the preamble to the US Constitution. Let's walk through the list. Do you believe the government should put people and the environment before profits by companies? Consider the contrary: Do you believe the government should put profits by companies before people and the environment? Absurd. "Environmentalism" has a bad name because the movement has always been infested by those who would happily use it as a pretext to seize power -- which is precisely what we have been seeing for the past two generations. But the corruptness of the movement doesn't mean the idea itself is bad. It isn't. It's obviously good. Do you believe the government should legislate equality and social justice? Or do you rather believe that government should legislate inequality and social injustice? "Equality" is central to traditional American values. The poor man, the wage laborer, and the unpopular should stand in exactly the same esteem before the law as the rich man, the landowner, and the politician. This naive, even laughable, idea is truly at the root of what has traditionally defined America. Some have co-opted the word to mean what I have heard called "equality of outcome". I think of Norman Rockwell's (in)famous "Freedom Froms": Freedom From Want and Freedom From Fear. We most definitely do NOT want the government seizing on these as its priority items, or making laws in an attempt to legislate away want and fear. But the rejection of the openly socialistic/communistic ideal of outcome equality is not a rejection of equality, any more than the rejection of homosexual "marriage" is a rejection of the institution of marriage. The whole "social justice" question is too loaded to answer. The term itself is warped, and as a knee-jerk reaction, I look askance at any reference to it. Do you believe the government should radically reform for profit companies to make them more worker friendly? This question is far too nebulous and, again, loaded. The history of western democracies, specifically 19th-century Great Britain (think Dickens), shows the excesses that unbridled capitalism can engender. No decent person wants Oliver Twist starving in the streets. Ideally, such things are taken care of by private concerns -- but let's not be blind to reality. In a for-profit economy, most entities can be counted on to act in their own bottom line's best interest. This actually self-limits the system, because it cannot be stable as long as the poor are not taken care of. The conservative's rationale is that caring for the poor is an individual, not a group, responsibility. I admit this has a lot of appeal. But it's nonsense in any realistic implementation. How often do you go out and buy dinner for people on the street? I bought a street guy a hamburger a week ago, but that is hardly a realistic way to feed the hungry. I pay tithing, and I take pleasure in noting how the Church (who receives that tithing) does good works in caring for the poor using those sacred funds. I feel that in some literal way, I am helping care for the poor by giving money to an entity that does the rubber-meets-the-road work of actually feeding and caring for people. I get my warm glow without leaving the comfort of my house. In a similar manner, lots of non-Mormons (and some Mormons) take some pleasure in noting how government programs feed and otherwise care for the poor, using their tax funding. Please note: I am fully aware of the difference between tithing and taxes. They are vastly different things. The work that the Church does in caring for the poor is starkly different in important ways from government welfare doles. But the feeling of vicarious do-gooding is probably not much different, if any. And the idea of a large entity interceding in behalf of a group of people is a reasonable point of contact. Do you believe the government should allow a person to stay on unemployment until he finds a job? Or should the government instead not allow people to stay on unemploymnet until they find a job? Maybe the government should pay unemployment only to those with jobs. This question is defective. The underlying thrust is whether the government should provide unemployment benefits. This is not a cut-and-dried matter, nor are those who believe that this is a good idea necessarily a bunch of communists. Do you believe the government should start public works programs to rebuild infrastructure, provide affordable housing, and clean up the environment? Government is by its very nature a public works program. And government has the duties to "provide for the common defense [and] promote the general welfare," for which purposes our Constitution was ordained and established. Infrastructure is an overwhelmingly important part of that, and I have never been able to swallow the whole "private roads" idea that some push. Remember, it was Ike who built the interstate system. And thank heaven for the environmental protections, without which the US might be another USSR, and our country a collection of unmitigated Aral Sea and Chernobyl-type disasters. Do you believe that you are free under democracy? Is there another system that provides more freedom? (I trust this is not the silly "republic vs. democracy" argument that sometimes gets trotted out, as if it's actually meaningful and relevant to split linguistic hairs in an attempt to establish one's worldview.) Do you believe the government should expand the food stamp program? Well, doesn't…that is, can you…Shouldn't we… Okay, I can't disagree with this one. The US welfare program is a huge mess – invasive, expensive, and inefficient. Wanting to make that area of the government even bigger and more intrusive is an exceptionally bad idea, and does indeed seem like a reflection of the foolishness of the communist mentality. Do you believe the government should institute and control all health care insurance? Loaded. Do you believe the government should have the Social Security program? No. But given that's what FDR established many generations ago, that's what we're stuck with. I've been paying into it my whole life, and I certainly hope to get something out of it. I am in no possible sense a big fan of FDR, but I expect my attitude may be exactly what our grandchildren and great-grandchildren say about Obamacare. We may hate the system, but if we're forced to support it, then we have claim to its (supposed) benefits. Do you believe the government should give out cash welfare payments (AFDC)? No. What a horrible idea. Do you believe the government should outlaw prayer in school? I find the whole "prayer-in-school" thing to be a red herring. People pray in school all the time. It's not illegal. But I'm not sure I want the teacher leading such a prayer. I can just imagine some feminist teacher leading the students in prayer to the Great Maternal Council, begging them for forgiveness from being a boy and strength to fight the evil patriarchy. Prayer in school sounds great to many people, until they or their children are expected to show honor and deference to a god they don't believe in. Do you believe the government should treat behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists/psychologists can understand or treat? This question exemplifies the weakness of the list of questions. It's loaded in every word. (For the record, I agree with the thought that underlies this question. But the question itself is a lie.) Do you believe the government should mandate a high minimum wage? No. But so believing does not make one a communist, which is the point.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is very sad. In April 2015 the Colorado fifteen round magazine ban repeal came up for vote. It was defeated by only a single representative's vote in favor of the ban. It is a feel good law that only makes self defense for the law abiding more difficult. Read about the vote here: http://www.coloradoindependent.com/152586/colorado-gop-gun-rights-bills-go-down-in-lopsided-battle/comment-page-1#comment-1378358

Oh, that's arguable, but I can agree with you that Wiki isn't the end-all rock-solid source. That said, as someone who lived through the events described, who was one of the throngs who poured into the streets and fought for the recall, I can vouch for the accuracy and relevance of what I've quoted here. Here's a semi-recent update on the Sheriff's lawsuit.

Correlation is not causation. This questionnaire has most moderate conservatives "failing," and then implies satanic inspiration. Yikes.

Sure you're not thinking of Transformers, Pam?

I would say the devalue it, drag it into the gutter of selfish pleasure seeking rutting then make an idol of that twisted version of it.

Dreams are just dreams. It is wise not to read too much into one unless you've in fact felt taught a lesson you can apply elsewhere. If I tried to interpret my dreams, I'd be totally whack (no comments from the peanut gallery). I've spent some time in the Middle East. I'm sure you are aware of what conversion would do to her and her family relationships. She would have to give up everything to join the Church or to marry you. Depending on the country, you can go to jail for discussing religion. The Church told me, in no uncertain terms, to NEVER offer out a Book of Mormon. Yes, you can convert, but it will be by example. The best example you can give is to be faithful. Serving your mission will do that. My advice. Love her for who she is. Love and respect her faith. Love and respect your faith. She will draw closer to you and will join you in your faith, so long as you are honorable. Attempts at open conversion will cause her, and you, a lot of pain. I love the tenets of Islam and being where the people live so faithfully. I feel the same when in Asia and surrounded by Buddist. They are peaceful loving religions and we can grow closer to Heavenly Father when respecting them.

I took a class (technically an internship) at Penn State in their bionegineering program. One unit was on implantable organ replacements, and we did some fairly intensive study on kidney transplants. Those awaiting such transplants are often reduced to weekly or twice-weekly dialysis to cleanse their blood while waiting for an organ that might take years to come, if it ever does. Because of the potential that such recipients might not urinate for years at a time, I asked the head researcher/doctor in the unit whether such people found urination painful when they resumed. He laughed and responded that it was quite the opposite. He told us that people don't realize how good it feels to urinate, until they can't do it any more. We take it for granted, because for us it is a granted. But his quote, which I copied verbatim and used for my unit writeup, was something like: "When you go into a group of kidney transplant recipients, you've never seen so many people peeing and smiling."

I suppose it would come as no surprise that I would weigh in on this one. I think it is completely nuts. I don't know how much of this is about the LoC or self-control, but my first thought is, "what kind of husband and father wants to completely throw away eternal marriage covenants over a little privation for 6 weeks while his wife is in post-partum recovery?" My personal reading and opinion on the nature of marriage covenants is that a few weeks of privation is not cause for breaking marriage vows. If I wanted to introduce SSM to this, I would sugggest that this kind of attitude is more damaging to the meaning and definition of marriage than anything the LGBT minority might do to marriage. Another part of me wants to boast, "6 weeks? You're upset over 6 weeks? Try six months or more." IMO, there can be a lot of give and take in navigating sexual differences in marriage. If your wife is committed to you and your marriage (and, committed to getting things on when she has reasonably recovered), put on your big boy pants and deal with your temporary privation. (mod note: clipped. . . we're walking a thin line here that's hard to judge, but I think this paragraph went just over) I could even see such an ultimatum turning the wife off of wanting to resume sexual activity even after she has recovered. I wouldn't want to share a bed with me if I was that boorish.

Clearly the bride is out of line. But before you rip (or continue to rip) on her harshly consider the following. The whole wedding event is in many ways an exercise in selfishness. It all about what the bride wants... This can last for months and it is socially acceptable/expected in many ways. People just don't come out of that mindset (assuming they get really sucked in) just because the wedding ended. They have to pull themselves back out (or get pulled). It seems to me that this is an clear example of that in action. This bride is getting very harsh "welcome back to the real world"

I know someone who once sent a bill to the doctor because the doctor was running an hour late and this person lost an hour of work time while waiting for the doctor. I don't know if the doctor paid the bill, but I do know that that person was never kept waiting again. I've occasionally pondered the morality of this course of action. I guess it depends on the reason why the doctor was running late. The patient who was kept waiting was an accountant.