anonemouse

The difference between now and then is that divorce is much more socially acceptable than it was years ago. I bet there were a lot of marriages that would have broken up 50+ years ago, if divorce hadn't been taboo. My reasoning behind the statement you responded to was this: In many cases, young people who were taught to abstain before marriage marry young. We all know the statistics on marriages between two very young people. In most cases, it is very unlikely that they will last. I think young people see someone they like, someone they lust after, someone that makes them blush, and they think, "This MUST be love!", so they get married. Once the first blush wears off and they realize that they really don't like the person they have shackled themselves to, they get divorced.

That's true. But what we have to go on is what we know or what can be proven. Today, we don't really rely on appearances to give credit to beliefs. Saying that we should continue to believe in an idea that can't be proven or even tested is simply illogical. Does that make anyone's belief in it less valid? No. Everyone needs to believe in something, whether it is religion or science. But I do think that religious faith in itself is illogical, based on the knowledge that if you have to have faith in something in order to believe it, there is no way to prove it. After all, it wouldn't be called faith, otherwise.

I'm glad you explained, Carlene, because I also had no idea what that was!

Well, crud. I had a reply typed out and apparently closed the page without posting it. Here goes again. How do you expect your children to find future mates, if they can't date? I can understand the belief that most people don't really know the person they are dating, which is why I am a definite believer in living with your partner before marriage. I posted about my former roommate in the "Sex before marriage?" thread, but I'll talk about her again. She dated the man she married for 4 years before they got engaged and married. They separated after 6 months, and were divorced the day before their first anniversary. To many people, 4 years is a long time to date a person. In fact, most couples would have been married long before that time, IMO. I fully believe that they would have either never married or worked out the kinks in their relationship if they had been able to live together before they got married. ETA: I believe that, on some levels, teaching our kids to abstain before marriage may actually be part of our higher divorce rates. They don't know the difference between lust and love, and I think that, in many cases, they mistake the two and enter into a marriage that should never have happened.

I can understand what Alexandra is attemting to say. I think you guys might be reading her words but missing what she is trying to say. At the same time, I think "logical" might be a better word to use than "rational", even though they are synonyms. I think that, by definition, believing in an all-powerful deity isn't "logical". If you think of it, if someone came up to you on a street and was raving about a giant purple frog that is all-powerful and created mankind, most people would automatically think, "Wow, this guy's nuts." What I have to ask is why is that man's belief more illogical than the mainstream beliefs of today? Believing in something that can not be proven and has no incontrovertible evidence to support it is not logical. That belief being widespread does not make it any more logical.

I'll ditto that! Give me a nice meal at Olive Garden over a bunch of candy or chocolate, any day!

What if they are raped and get HPV from the man that raped them?

Unfortunately, Weight Watchers throws out their records after someone hasn't been to a meeting in 6 weeks. I found that out the hard way. I really don't think you can get around the medically supervised diet. At least, I haven't heard of any way. The only time I would think it would be possible is if your weight was seriously jeopardizing your heath and you probably wouldn't survive another 6 months without surgery.

Unfortunately, I think it does matter in some cases. I think an email would be fine if the flowers came from a friend or family member, but since they came from a work setting, I would go the more formal route and send cards.

This topic was brought up in the HPV vaccine thread, and I wanted to get everybody's opinion on it. I think that sex before marriage is not necessarily a bad thing. I think it, along with living together, gives couples a chance to see what their marriage might be like. Sex is a huge part of marriage, and bad sex can undermine a marriage, IMO. Plus, it helps you figure out if what you are feeling is true love or just plain lust. I personally believe that the push to make teens abstain until marriage may actually be contributing to the high divorce rate. If people think that they have to be married to have sex, I think they might rush into a marriage because they might not know the difference between lust and love. Take my former roommate, for example. She and her boyfriend dated for 4 years before they got married. To my knowledge, they were both virgins when they married. They separated within 6 months of marrying and were officially divorced the day before their first anniversary. I really believe that the disgrace in having sex before marriage and living together (he was Mormon) contributed to the failure of their marriage. I think that if they had been allowed to see what each other was truly like, apart from dates, they wouldn't have gotten married.

How much fill do you have? I would be worried that you already have too much fill if you aren't able to eat in the morning. You could also try loosening your band with coffee or hot tea in the morning before you eat. That's what some of the people on the board do.

I wish. I found out after all my info was submitted to insurance that the surgeon I chose is out of network. So, new surgeon. The new one is several more hours away, but more experienced with lap-bands, so I am hoping this was a blessing in disguise. I had been having second thoughts about the original surgeon, anyway.

That is exactly what the process of getting approved by insurance feels like. I was posting on OH about all the problems I have had getting my crap to insurance, and it struck me that it really was sort-of funny in a stupid, morbid way. Here is what I was posting on OH in response to a question about how long the process takes: :faint:

Well, one of the good things about having to swith surgeons might be getting a new nutritionist. I'm hoping that the new one will have a better plan.

Yeah, I kind of miss them, too. It really was a lot of fun. Being able to debate it with a worthy opponent was definitely stimulating. So many people (on both sides) just find something that they like the sound of and don't bother trying to understand the argument or even find out whether it even makes sense. There are a lot of concepts and ideas about evolution that do make a lot of sense on the surface but completely fall apart when you have more information.

The original surgeon's office told me that my maximum out-of-pocket would be $2000. I don't know whether to trust that, though, since they failed to find out that the surgeon wasn't in-network. If that's true, I won't have to liquidate stock or get financing, because I would have enough to pay that out of my savings. If I have to pay more than $5000-$6000, I'll have to go into debt.

Thanks! I think I'll need it!

I don't know. I need to call the nurse manager back, because I have some other questions, too. I am not sure whether the 50% I have to pay is 50% of the original price ($18,000 in Memphis) or 50% of what the insurance winds up paying (since they usually pay much less than what the original bill was). That could make a huge difference. If I have to pay 50% of the $18,000, I'll have to get a loan or liquidate some stock. To top it off, I don't know if the $18,000 includes the anesthetist and hospital price or if it is just the surgeon's price.

This is what I posted to you in another thread:

And yet, if the original criticism of you was unfounded, as you claimed, it isn't hypocrisy. If you intended no ill will with your original comments, it shouldn't bother you if those same comments are used against you.

Or maybe, they realize who the TRUE hypocrite is.

My GOSH! :eek:You mean, you were lying when you said it was absolutely harmless!!! I'm horrified!:omg: My point, Ron, is that you can't claim that something is absolutely harmless and then whine about being attacked when it's turned around on you. I'm just following your lead, after all.

I'll ditto that. Sometimes you DO need to respond to people in the way they understand. You'll understand then, Ron, why we all respond to you the way we do.

Exactly. He can't claim that something is harmless when he does it and then decide it's an attack when someone else does it.

Ron, you are the transparent one, and I think everyone here can see that. Whenever you don't have an intelligent response to someone, you claim that you are being attacked. It's very obvious. It's the old "poor me, I don't know what to say, so I'll try to deflect the attention to someone else" tactic.