Religions > Atheism > Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage"
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Seldom Seen Smith" |
| Date: |
22 Nov 2004 08:54:48 PM |
| Object: |
Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
Conservatives Urge Closer Look at Marriage
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/protecting_marriage
NEW YORK - "Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many
activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some
conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long
before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh,
soul-searching look at the institution.
"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about
divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor
who writes frequently about family issues.
While Christensen doesn't oppose the campaign to enact state and federal
bans on gay marriage, he worries it's distracting from immediate threats
to marriage's place in society.
"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime
fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated
— if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate
childlessness — then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."
Gay-rights supporters, during their recent losing battles against
gay-marriage bans in 11 states, often argued that if marriage in America
was in fact troubled, it was heterosexuals — not gays — who bore the blame.
"That was the best argument same-sex marriage advocates had: 'Where were
you when no-fault divorce went through?'" said Allan Carlson, a
conservative scholar who runs a family-studies center in Rockford, Ill.
"Any thoughtful defender of marriage has to say, 'You're right. We were
asleep at the switch in the '60s and '70s.'"
Carlson hopes the same-sex marriage debate will encourage a broader
national conversation.
"For the first time in about 50 years we are honestly looking at the
state of marriage in America, and what we have allowed to happen to it,"
he said. "I hope the conservative side will do a little soul-searching
and look for ways to rebuild traditional marriage into something stronger."
Carlson decries no-fault divorce, where neither spouse is held
responsible for the breakup, but acknowledges that its demise is not
imminent. He proposes more modest steps: tax revisions benefiting
married couples, a more positive portrayal of marriage in textbooks,
policies aiding young college graduates so they could afford to marry
sooner.
In several of the states that approved gay-marriage bans on Nov. 2,
initiatives are underway to bolster heterosexual marriage. A bill
pending in Michigan's legislature would encourage premarital education;
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and his wife have invited 1,000 couples to
join them in a Valentine's Day (news - web sites) covenant marriage
ceremony in which they would voluntarily reduce their options for a
quick divorce.
However, gay-rights supporters say slogans like "protection of marriage"
are mostly used as code for anti-gay sentiment to further partisan aims.
"There's clearly a divide about what constitutes a healthy marriage,"
said Corri Planck of the Family Pride Coalition, which represents gay
and lesbian families. "But there are countless gay and lesbian couples
who, if they had legal recognition, would hold up their relations as
models of good marriage."
Jordan Lorence, a Phoenix-based lawyer with the conservative Alliance
Defense Fund, has been active fighting same-sex marriage, but he agrees
with those who see marriage facing broader challenges.
"For decades, Christians have been guilty for having a weak defense of
marriage," he told the Christian Post earlier this year. "Marriage has
become a junior high school dating scene where if I am unhappy I could
divorce my husband or wife and move on to someone else."
In a telephone interview, Lorence said Americans face a choice of
whether to view marriage as primarily an act of individual satisfaction
or as an institution serving the communal good.
"That's the big battle line," he said. "I think people's attitudes are
shifting, and they're saying the traditional way makes a lot of sense —
that you can't just get divorced at the drop of a hat."
Many of the groups campaigning against same-sex marriage evoke "the
sanctity of marriage" yet make little or no mention of the problem of
divorce.
One group, the Alliance for Marriage, has focused almost entirely in the
past two years on advocating a federal amendment that would ban gay
marriage. The alliance's president, Matt Daniels, said the proposed ban
is an essential starting point for other initiatives to strengthen
heterosexual marriage — such as promoting family-friendly workplace
policies.
"No one in the alliance believes saving the legal status of marriage as
between man and woman will alone be sufficient to stem the tide of
family disintegration," Daniels said. "But if we lose that legal status,
we lose the policy tool we need to pursue our broader agenda."
Stephanie Coontz, a professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia,
Wash., and author of a new history of marriage, said passing anti-gay
amendments in hopes of returning marriage to some bygone traditional
status is futile.
"Heterosexuals changed marriage, not gays and lesbians," she said. "None
of these measures is going to change the fact that marriage no longer
plays the same central economic and political role that it used to. ...
People see it as more optional."
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 07:32:21 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com>, Seldom Seen
Smith lept out of the bushes shouting:
Carlson decries no-fault divorce
Yep.
First they came for the gays. Then they came for...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 08:38:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:32:21 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com>, Seldom Seen
Smith lept out of the bushes shouting:
Carlson decries no-fault divorce
Yep.
First they came for the gays. Then they came for...
Next they will be forcing us all to wear white socks on the pain of
public beatings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 08:41:24 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41ab4ac5.206886281@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:32:21 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com>, Seldom Seen
Smith lept out of the bushes shouting:
Carlson decries no-fault divorce
Yep.
First they came for the gays. Then they came for...
Next they will be forcing us all to wear white socks on the pain of
public beatings.
Oh well, I'm screwed. I only wear black socks :P
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 08:46:49 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:41:24 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41ab4ac5.206886281@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:32:21 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com>, Seldom Seen
Smith lept out of the bushes shouting:
Carlson decries no-fault divorce
Yep.
First they came for the gays. Then they came for...
Next they will be forcing us all to wear white socks on the pain of
public beatings.
Oh well, I'm screwed. I only wear black socks :P
Socks appeal!
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 09:26:54 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:baj6q0t83juda0i26rtik6sg50cuo74e6h@4ax.com...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:41:24 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41ab4ac5.206886281@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:32:21 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com>, Seldom Seen
Smith lept out of the bushes shouting:
Carlson decries no-fault divorce
Yep.
First they came for the gays. Then they came for...
Next they will be forcing us all to wear white socks on the pain of
public beatings.
Oh well, I'm screwed. I only wear black socks :P
Socks appeal!
NOW you've done it ..... they're going to try to outlaw socks, and make any
mention of it punishable by a fine.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 09:05:05 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:baj6q0t83juda0i26rtik6sg50cuo74e6h@4ax.com...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:41:24 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41ab4ac5.206886281@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:32:21 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com>, Seldom Seen
Smith lept out of the bushes shouting:
Carlson decries no-fault divorce
Yep.
First they came for the gays. Then they came for...
Next they will be forcing us all to wear white socks on the pain of
public beatings.
Oh well, I'm screwed. I only wear black socks :P
Socks appeal!
LOL! Guess I should be grateful for what I can get! :)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
26 Nov 2004 05:04:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:46:49 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:41:24 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41ab4ac5.206886281@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:32:21 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com>, Seldom Seen
Smith lept out of the bushes shouting:
Carlson decries no-fault divorce
Yep.
First they came for the gays. Then they came for...
Next they will be forcing us all to wear white socks on the pain of
public beatings.
Oh well, I'm screwed. I only wear black socks :P
Socks appeal!
/Robyn
Socks it to me!
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
26 Nov 2004 05:03:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:41:24 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41ab4ac5.206886281@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:32:21 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com>, Seldom Seen
Smith lept out of the bushes shouting:
Carlson decries no-fault divorce
Yep.
First they came for the gays. Then they came for...
Next they will be forcing us all to wear white socks on the pain of
public beatings.
Oh well, I'm screwed. I only wear black socks :P
They'll do that to you in the public square, too.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 02:54:33 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41ab4ac5.206886281@news-west.newscene.com...
< snip >
Next they will be forcing us all to wear white socks on the pain of
public beatings.
Oh well, I'm screwed. I only wear black socks :P
o/ Black socks!
They never get dirty.
The longer you wear them, the blacker they get. /o
I can't remember the next verse. <sigh>
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 04:04:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:54:33 -0600, Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41ab4ac5.206886281@news-west.newscene.com...
< snip >
Next they will be forcing us all to wear white socks on the pain of
public beatings.
Oh well, I'm screwed. I only wear black socks :P
o/ Black socks!
They never get dirty.
The longer you wear them, the blacker they get. /o
I can't remember the next verse. <sigh>
<mimimimimi>
"Sometimes, I think of the laundry
But something inside tells me
"don't send them yet!"
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Sophist" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 04:17:43 PM |
|
|
Tukla Ratte wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41ab4ac5.206886281@news-west.newscene.com...
< snip >
Next they will be forcing us all to wear white socks on the pain of
public beatings.
Oh well, I'm screwed. I only wear black socks :P
o/ Black socks!
They never get dirty.
The longer you wear them, the blacker they get. /o
I can't remember the next verse. <sigh>
Someday
I'll probably launder them
Something keeps telling me don't do it yet.
Not yet, not yet, not yet.
--
Aaron Boyden
The main division between the so-called Continental and Analytic
traditions has been disputes over whether the task of being unclear
should be carried out in natural language or in a formal system.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
24 Nov 2004 11:47:25 PM |
|
|
(Kate ) writes:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:32:21 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com>, Seldom Seen
Smith lept out of the bushes shouting:
Carlson decries no-fault divorce
Yep.
First they came for the gays. Then they came for...
Next they will be forcing us all to wear white socks on the pain of
public beatings.
Before Labor Day!?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
25 Nov 2004 12:21:29 AM |
|
|
On 25 Nov 2004 05:47:25 GMT, Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) writes:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:32:21 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com>, Seldom Seen
Smith lept out of the bushes shouting:
Carlson decries no-fault divorce
Yep.
First they came for the gays. Then they came for...
Next they will be forcing us all to wear white socks on the pain of
public beatings.
Before Labor Day!?
No, the beatings will be scheduled after election day, by a couple of weeks.
Merlyn LeRoy
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
22 Nov 2004 11:54:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:54:48 GMT, (Seldom Seen Smith)
wrote:
Conservatives Urge Closer Look at Marriage
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/protecting_marriage
NEW YORK - "Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many
activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some
conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long
before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh,
soul-searching look at the institution.
"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about
divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor
who writes frequently about family issues.
While Christensen doesn't oppose the campaign to enact state and federal
bans on gay marriage, he worries it's distracting from immediate threats
to marriage's place in society.
"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime
fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated
— if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate
childlessness — then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."
This guy is against deliberate childlessness? What, does he want
people forced to have kids?
Just how insane are these people?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 08:13:47 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:54:48 GMT, (Seldom Seen Smith)
wrote:
Conservatives Urge Closer Look at Marriage
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/protecting_marriage
NEW YORK - "Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many
activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some
conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long
before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh,
soul-searching look at the institution.
"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about
divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor
who writes frequently about family issues.
While Christensen doesn't oppose the campaign to enact state and federal
bans on gay marriage, he worries it's distracting from immediate threats
to marriage's place in society.
"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime
fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated
— if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate
childlessness — then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."
This guy is against deliberate childlessness? What, does he want
people forced to have kids?
Just how insane are these people?
Some questions are best left unasked. You might end up getting an answer, by example.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in
the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary,
self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition
of tyranny." - James Madison, _The Federalist_, #47
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
26 Nov 2004 04:47:55 PM |
|
|
On 22 Nov 2004 23:54:12 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:54:48 GMT, (Seldom Seen Smith)
wrote:
Conservatives Urge Closer Look at Marriage
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/protecting_marriage
NEW YORK - "Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many
activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some
conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long
before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh,
soul-searching look at the institution.
"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about
divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor
who writes frequently about family issues.
While Christensen doesn't oppose the campaign to enact state and federal
bans on gay marriage, he worries it's distracting from immediate threats
to marriage's place in society.
"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime
fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated
— if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate
childlessness — then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."
This guy is against deliberate childlessness? What, does he want
people forced to have kids?
Just how insane are these people?
They're fundamentalist Christians. Such is 'pecker in condom' or
clergyman balls-deep in the arse of a child.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 09:59:06 AM |
|
|
On 22 Nov 2004 23:54:12 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime
fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated
— if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate
childlessness — then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."
This guy is against deliberate childlessness?
Yes. Many Fundamentalist Christians call non-parents "selfish" for not
reproducing. When I first heard one tell me this, I was litterally
shocked speechless. In the real, non-bizaro, world, it is parents with
a large number of children who are selfish (also ignortant,
uneducated, superstitious, and far too often assholes).
What, does he want people forced to have kids?
Of course--- that's exactly what they are doing.
Just how insane are these people?
Very. Very, very insane.
--
"Terrorism" isn't the enemy: George W Bush is!
http://lastliberal.org
Voting Republican makes baby Jesus cry!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
22 Nov 2004 09:36:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:54:48 GMT, (Seldom Seen Smith)
wrote:
Conservatives Urge Closer Look at Marriage
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/protecting_marriage
NEW YORK - "Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many
activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some
conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long
before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh,
soul-searching look at the institution.
There was a time when a black person marrying a white poerson brought
on the same indignation and hatred and ire as the current "protect
marriage" hoodlums.
"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about
divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor
who writes frequently about family issues.
However, divorce is usually HEALTHY and GOOD for a family: something
so-called "conservatives" seem to ignore.
--
"Terrorism" isn't the enemy: George W Bush is!
http://lastliberal.org
Voting Republican makes baby Jesus cry!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 10:04:32 AM |
|
|
(The Last Liberal) writes:
However, divorce is usually HEALTHY and GOOD for a family: something
so-called "conservatives" seem to ignore.
Really? My marriage would be well-served by a divorce? Why is
that? Are the children well-served by a divorce, by the confusion and
terror that follows a break-up of the family unit?
Don't imagine that most divorces involve tragedy like alcoholism
or domestic violence; they don't. Most divorces are the result of one
or both people pursuing agendas that have nothing to do with their
families, and that's terribly sad, a surrendering of personal
responsibility.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
You know how it is. You're all oiled up and wrestling naked in the manner
of the ancient Greek warriors and the next thing you know you're using
your lever to move the world. - Gen. J.C. Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 12:53:40 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87act8zh4f.fsf@drizzle.com:
desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal) writes:
However, divorce is usually HEALTHY and GOOD for a family: something
so-called "conservatives" seem to ignore.
Really? My marriage would be well-served by a divorce? Why is
that? Are the children well-served by a divorce, by the confusion and
terror that follows a break-up of the family unit?
Are they better served by living with parents who hate each other, loudly
and daily?
Don't imagine that most divorces involve tragedy like alcoholism
or domestic violence; they don't. Most divorces are the result of one
or both people pursuing agendas that have nothing to do with their
families, and that's terribly sad, a surrendering of personal
responsibility.
Very true. However, forcing them to stay married will not alter that one
little bit, and will almost always make it worse for both parents and
children.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
26 Nov 2004 04:42:06 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:53:40 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87act8zh4f.fsf@drizzle.com:
desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal) writes:
However, divorce is usually HEALTHY and GOOD for a family: something
so-called "conservatives" seem to ignore.
Really? My marriage would be well-served by a divorce? Why is
that? Are the children well-served by a divorce, by the confusion and
terror that follows a break-up of the family unit?
Are they better served by living with parents who hate each other, loudly
and daily?
Don't imagine that most divorces involve tragedy like alcoholism
or domestic violence; they don't. Most divorces are the result of one
or both people pursuing agendas that have nothing to do with their
families, and that's terribly sad, a surrendering of personal
responsibility.
Very true. However, forcing them to stay married will not alter that one
little bit, and will almost always make it worse for both parents and
children.
Hearty agreement on both points.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 02:10:19 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2004 08:04:32 -0800, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal) writes:
However, divorce is usually HEALTHY and GOOD for a family: something
so-called "conservatives" seem to ignore.
Really? My marriage would be well-served by a divorce? Why is
that? Are the children well-served by a divorce, by the confusion and
terror that follows a break-up of the family unit?
Uh, no, he said that divorce is usually healthy for families, not
marriages.
If a relationship is dysfunctional and one member won't work at it,
divorce is healthier for the family rather than let that member
continue to mess up everyone else.
And terror and confusion is often the state of the family before the
divorce.
Don't imagine that most divorces involve tragedy like alcoholism
or domestic violence; they don't. Most divorces are the result of one
or both people pursuing agendas that have nothing to do with their
families, and that's terribly sad, a surrendering of personal
responsibility.
So you feel that we should all be forever saddled with mates that we
have discovered are lazy and dysfunctional after a while? Divorce
doesn't reqlinquish anyone's responsibility. It introduces an
externally enforced set of rules.
Marriage is really nothing more than a civil personal business
contract. Everything else is personal integrity. No rule, or custom
will enforce that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 02:38:48 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2004 14:10:19 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On 23 Nov 2004 08:04:32 -0800, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal) writes:
However, divorce is usually HEALTHY and GOOD for a family: something
so-called "conservatives" seem to ignore.
Really? My marriage would be well-served by a divorce? Why is
that? Are the children well-served by a divorce, by the confusion and
terror that follows a break-up of the family unit?
Uh, no, he said that divorce is usually healthy for families, not
marriages.
Funny how he even quoted what I wrote, and then tried to make me say
something totally, completely different.
If a relationship is dysfunctional and one member won't work at it,
divorce is healthier for the family rather than let that member
continue to mess up everyone else.
And terror and confusion is often the state of the family before the
divorce.
In the USA, nearly all divorces are filed by women (some 90%, last
time I looked). That is exactly why men in particular, and
Fundamentalist Christians in general, dislike and fear divorce. It far
too often literally saves women's and children's lives.
Don't imagine that most divorces involve tragedy like alcoholism
or domestic violence; they don't. Most divorces are the result of one
or both people pursuing agendas that have nothing to do with their
families, and that's terribly sad, a surrendering of personal
responsibility.
So you feel that we should all be forever saddled with mates that we
have discovered are lazy and dysfunctional after a while?
More to the point: women being saddled with men who are violent and
abusive. In the USA, divorce is good, wholesome, healthy, sane, and
very, very much necessary--- just in many other parts of the world.
Divorce doesn't reqlinquish anyone's responsibility. It introduces
an externally enforced set of rules.
It also breaks the chains that bind a victim to her victimizer.
Marriage is really nothing more than a civil personal business
contract. Everything else is personal integrity. No rule, or custom
will enforce that.
--
"Terrorism" isn't the enemy: George W Bush is!
http://lastliberal.org
Voting Republican makes baby Jesus cry!
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
26 Nov 2004 04:44:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:38:48 GMT, (The Last
Liberal) wrote:
On 23 Nov 2004 14:10:19 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On 23 Nov 2004 08:04:32 -0800, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
(The Last Liberal) writes:
However, divorce is usually HEALTHY and GOOD for a family: something
so-called "conservatives" seem to ignore.
Really? My marriage would be well-served by a divorce? Why is
that? Are the children well-served by a divorce, by the confusion and
terror that follows a break-up of the family unit?
Uh, no, he said that divorce is usually healthy for families, not
marriages.
Funny how he even quoted what I wrote, and then tried to make me say
something totally, completely different.
If a relationship is dysfunctional and one member won't work at it,
divorce is healthier for the family rather than let that member
continue to mess up everyone else.
And terror and confusion is often the state of the family before the
divorce.
In the USA, nearly all divorces are filed by women (some 90%, last
time I looked). That is exactly why men in particular, and
Fundamentalist Christians in general, dislike and fear divorce. It far
too often literally saves women's and children's lives.
Don't imagine that most divorces involve tragedy like alcoholism
or domestic violence; they don't. Most divorces are the result of one
or both people pursuing agendas that have nothing to do with their
families, and that's terribly sad, a surrendering of personal
responsibility.
So you feel that we should all be forever saddled with mates that we
have discovered are lazy and dysfunctional after a while?
More to the point: women being saddled with men who are violent and
abusive. In the USA, divorce is good, wholesome, healthy, sane, and
very, very much necessary--- just in many other parts of the world.
Divorce doesn't reqlinquish anyone's responsibility. It introduces
an externally enforced set of rules.
It also breaks the chains that bind a victim to her victimizer.
"Conservative" Christians loathe that aspect and terminally ignore it.
Marriage is really nothing more than a civil personal business
contract. Everything else is personal integrity. No rule, or custom
will enforce that.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: AQOTM Nomination |
26 Nov 2004 04:43:12 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2004 14:10:19 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage"
On 23 Nov 2004 08:04:32 -0800, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal) writes:
However, divorce is usually HEALTHY and GOOD for a family: something
so-called "conservatives" seem to ignore.
Really? My marriage would be well-served by a divorce? Why is
that? Are the children well-served by a divorce, by the confusion and
terror that follows a break-up of the family unit?
Uh, no, he said that divorce is usually healthy for families, not
marriages.
If a relationship is dysfunctional and one member won't work at it,
divorce is healthier for the family rather than let that member
continue to mess up everyone else.
And terror and confusion is often the state of the family before the
divorce.
Don't imagine that most divorces involve tragedy like alcoholism
or domestic violence; they don't. Most divorces are the result of one
or both people pursuing agendas that have nothing to do with their
families, and that's terribly sad, a surrendering of personal
responsibility.
So you feel that we should all be forever saddled with mates that we
have discovered are lazy and dysfunctional after a while? Divorce
doesn't reqlinquish anyone's responsibility. It introduces an
externally enforced set of rules.
/begin
Marriage is really nothing more than a civil personal business
contract. Everything else is personal integrity. No rule, or custom
will enforce that.
/end
Seconds?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tink" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM Nomination |
26 Nov 2004 05:14:59 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On 23 Nov 2004 14:10:19 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage"
On 23 Nov 2004 08:04:32 -0800, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal) writes:
However, divorce is usually HEALTHY and GOOD for a family: something
so-called "conservatives" seem to ignore.
Really? My marriage would be well-served by a divorce? Why is
that? Are the children well-served by a divorce, by the confusion and
terror that follows a break-up of the family unit?
Uh, no, he said that divorce is usually healthy for families, not
marriages.
If a relationship is dysfunctional and one member won't work at it,
divorce is healthier for the family rather than let that member
continue to mess up everyone else.
And terror and confusion is often the state of the family before the
divorce.
Don't imagine that most divorces involve tragedy like alcoholism
or domestic violence; they don't. Most divorces are the result of one
or both people pursuing agendas that have nothing to do with their
families, and that's terribly sad, a surrendering of personal
responsibility.
So you feel that we should all be forever saddled with mates that we
have discovered are lazy and dysfunctional after a while? Divorce
doesn't reqlinquish anyone's responsibility. It introduces an
externally enforced set of rules.
/begin
Marriage is really nothing more than a civil personal business
contract. Everything else is personal integrity. No rule, or custom
will enforce that.
/end
Seconds?
seconded
--
Skydivers don't knock on death's door; they ring the bell and run
away... It really pisses him off.
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM Nomination |
28 Nov 2004 05:30:26 AM |
|
|
In article <AYGdnSZLnNhpJTrcRVn-vQ@comcast.com>,
Tink <kjgrish@comcast.net> wrote:
stoney wrote:
On 23 Nov 2004 14:10:19 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage"
On 23 Nov 2004 08:04:32 -0800, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal) writes:
However, divorce is usually HEALTHY and GOOD for a family: something
so-called "conservatives" seem to ignore.
Really? My marriage would be well-served by a divorce? Why is
that? Are the children well-served by a divorce, by the confusion and
terror that follows a break-up of the family unit?
Uh, no, he said that divorce is usually healthy for families, not
marriages.
If a relationship is dysfunctional and one member won't work at it,
divorce is healthier for the family rather than let that member
continue to mess up everyone else.
And terror and confusion is often the state of the family before the
divorce.
Don't imagine that most divorces involve tragedy like alcoholism
or domestic violence; they don't. Most divorces are the result of one
or both people pursuing agendas that have nothing to do with their
families, and that's terribly sad, a surrendering of personal
responsibility.
So you feel that we should all be forever saddled with mates that we
have discovered are lazy and dysfunctional after a while? Divorce
doesn't reqlinquish anyone's responsibility. It introduces an
externally enforced set of rules.
/begin
Marriage is really nothing more than a civil personal business
contract. Everything else is personal integrity. No rule, or custom
will enforce that.
/end
Seconds?
seconded
Recorded.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 02:30:38 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2004 08:04:32 -0800, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal) writes:
However, divorce is usually HEALTHY and GOOD for a family: something
so-called "conservatives" seem to ignore.
Really?
Yes.
My marriage would be well-served by a divorce?
No, silly!
Why is that?
Why is what?
Are the children well-served by a divorce, by the confusion and
terror that follows a break-up of the family unit?
That seems highly unlikely to me. Perhaps your ability to read needs
work.
--
"Terrorism" isn't the enemy: George W Bush is!
http://lastliberal.org
Voting Republican makes baby Jesus cry!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seldom Seen Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 08:27:30 PM |
|
|
(The Last Liberal) wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:54:48 GMT, (Seldom Seen Smith)
wrote:
Conservatives Urge Closer Look at Marriage
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/protecting_marriage
There was a time when a black person marrying a white poerson brought
on the same indignation and hatred and ire as the current "protect
marriage" hoodlums.
There's still a lot of America that quote the Christanic mythologies to
try to claim that it some how "proves" that such mixed marriages are some
how Satanic.
"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about
divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor
who writes frequently about family issues.
However, divorce is usually HEALTHY and GOOD for a family: something
so-called "conservatives" seem to ignore.
Or you can do what Jimmy Swaggart and so many other Christian leaders
do: ***** prostitutes and wonder aloud about fucking ther 9-year-old
children.
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
26 Nov 2004 04:44:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:27:30 GMT, (Seldom Seen Smith)
wrote:
desertphile@cchr.ws (The Last Liberal) wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:54:48 GMT, (Seldom Seen Smith)
wrote:
Conservatives Urge Closer Look at Marriage
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/protecting_marriage
There was a time when a black person marrying a white poerson brought
on the same indignation and hatred and ire as the current "protect
marriage" hoodlums.
There's still a lot of America that quote the Christanic mythologies to
try to claim that it some how "proves" that such mixed marriages are some
how Satanic.
"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about
divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor
who writes frequently about family issues.
However, divorce is usually HEALTHY and GOOD for a family: something
so-called "conservatives" seem to ignore.
Or you can do what Jimmy Swaggart and so many other Christian leaders
do: ***** prostitutes and wonder aloud about fucking ther 9-year-old
children.
That's so so so...clergical.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
