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: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 12:54:00 AM |
|
|
"Seldom Seen Smith" <sss@hite.org> wrote in message
news:10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com...
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_mar
riage
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.
That's what liberals did after a realistic investigation of what
marriage/divorce REALLY meant.
"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.
No. When you talk about protecting marriage, you have to EDUCATE people into
what marriage means BEFORE they get married. To block exit FROM marriage,
just by enacting divorce laws, fixes NOTHING!
It just forces people to STAY in bad relationships for the sake of some
right wing, blataatly ignorant, propaganda.
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.
Like anything else, the most severe threat is ignorance ... somehting which
both the christian and republican right wing support.
"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."
If you don't address reality, which seems to be suggested here, you're NOT
"saving marriages"; you're just taking us back to the dark ages when people
were FORCED to stay in dysfunctional relationships.
Cohabitation? Deliberate childlessness? That's an indication of the insanity
of the message - the fanatic who wants to FORCE an atmosphere where only ONE
myopic vision of life is FORCED on all others.
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.'"
No fault divorce was created to SOLVE problems of dysfunctional marriages.
What do these zealots want? Force men and women to STAY in these sick
relationships?
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."
But he conservatives are NOT likely to do that!
They do NOT look at the problem, and seek REAL WORLD solutions!
They look at the problem ... BLAME liberals, stick thier head in sands of
ignorance and demand everyone else follow!
Carlson decries no-fault divorce, where neither spouse is held
responsible for the breakup, but acknowledges that its demise is not
imminent.
Obviously Carlson is a fanatical *****.
Apparently he thinks SOMEONE shsould be found legally, or even criminally,
liable when two people (he doesn't even know) make a mistake and get
married.
He proposes more modest steps: tax revisions benefiting
married couples,
Why should single people pay the tax burdens of those who opt for marriage?
Why should the government, in effect, pay people (by giving tax incentives)
for marriage?
Why should people be pressured into getting, or staying, married just by the
governmental use of financial blackmail?
a more positive portrayal of marriage in textbooks,
Textbooks should tell the truth - NOT conservative propaganda.
policies aiding young college graduates so they could afford to marry
sooner.
Bwahahhaaaa.....one of the main causes of divorce is people marrying BEFORE
they are ready to get down to a serious relationship - and this jerk wants
to reward that?
In several of the states that approved gay-marriage bans on Nov. 2,
initiatives are underway to bolster heterosexual marriage.
YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE GOOD MARRIAGES!!!!!!!!!
You can only FORCE peoeple to stay in marriages that SHOULDN'T be
continued!!!!
A bill
pending in Michigan's legislature would encourage premarital education;
Whose "education"?
The Roman Catholic Church?
Fundamentalist Reich wing fanatics?
The SAME people who outrageously object to sexual relationship in pubnlic
schools, are now going to teach about "good marriages"?
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.
PR Propaganda; nothing more!
My ex wife and I SWORE "'till death do us part" - you cannot get any more
commited than that ...... but we ARE divorced!!!
This whole game is nothing more than a conservative SHAM!
However, gay-rights supporters say slogans like "protection of marriage"
are mostly used as code for anti-gay sentiment to further partisan aims.
No - they are actually code for the conservative political and religious
Reich to have the government (and THEIR religon) control everything about
our private lives.
"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.
The first chalolenge is to get rid of these fanatical homophobics wanting to
tell heterosexuals how THEY should have a relationship!
"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."
Bull *****!
For dozens of centuries, christians have had faulty marriages - some even
ending in the death of one of the couple. Sadly, adn ignorantly, a part of
that "christian" franaticism has been to disallow - or make it VERY
difficult - to get OUT of inisane marriages.
Now these assholes want to force that same insanity back on EVERYONE, via
government control!
How THEY describe "no fault divorce", is not only a fundamental lie .. but
it also insults those who DO take marriage seriously (which, other than a
few outrageous "multiple marriage" people, is everyone who says "I Do")!
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.
In a SANE world, and certainly in a democracy, NO ONE gets married "for the
common good"!!!!!!!
THAT concept iis more insane than either communism or Nazi-ism!
"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."
Again, you CANNOT create good marriages by just locking the divorce door!
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.
Divorce is NOT THE PROBLEM, shitheads!
Dysfunctional marriages are the problem.
Divorce is the SOLUTION to dysfunctional marriages!
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.
Nazi fanatic crap! Nothing more!
Heterosexual marriages DO NOT CHANGE IN THE LEAST because one has outlawed
homosexual marriages. It is a clear indication of the insanity of such
individuals, or groups, that they pretend differently!
"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,"
No one with a sane mind believes that allowing, or outlawing, gay marriages
will have any afect on heterosexual marriages.
Daniels said. "But if we lose that legal status,
we lose the policy tool we need to pursue our broader agenda."
??????
Does that mean that by being a homophobic, and having the political power,
you're just flexing your muscles with a trial run - with gay people as your
victims - before you try more severe attempts to cvontrtol other people's
lives?
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.
It's a hell of a lot more scarey than that - it's damned dangerous.
You're letting the jack booted religio-Nazis get a foot in the door!
"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: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 01:39:02 AM |
|
|
"Seldom Seen Smith" <sss@hite.org> wrote in message
news:10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com...
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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
Maybe he should start rewarding women for having more and more children al
la Hitler, who he probably thinks was just misunderstood.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
26 Nov 2004 04:49:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:39:02 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <bob@bob.com>
wrote:
"Seldom Seen Smith" <sss@hite.org> wrote in message
news:10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com...
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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
Maybe he should start rewarding women for having more and more children al
la Hitler, who he probably thinks was just misunderstood.
WHAT? That would cost the moronic fundies, $$$$$, their god!
--
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 10:04:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:39:02 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <bob@bob.com>
wrote:
"Seldom Seen Smith" <sss@hite.org> wrote in message
news:10q59g6ogdesv87@corp.supernews.com...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/protecting_marriage
[....]
"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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
Maybe he should start rewarding women for having more and more children al
la Hitler, who he probably thinks was just misunderstood.
Yes, precisely. People who lack children tend to be very well-
educated, liberal, and hard to control and manipulate. See for example
Karen Breslau's "Overplanned Parenthood: Ceausescu's cruel law",
Newsweek, Jan. 22, 1990, p. 35. which I have placed on my web site at
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/ceausesc.htm
"The fetus is the property of the entire society," Ceausescu
proclaimed. "Anyone who avoids having children is a deserter who
abandons the laws of national continuity."
Women who did not have sex enough were fined up to 10% of their wages.
--
"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 05:03:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:04:23 GMT, (The Last
Liberal) wrote:
[]
"Terrorism" isn't the enemy: George W Bush is!
http://lastliberal.org
Voting Republican makes baby Jesus cry!
George W. Bush *is* a terrorist.
--
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: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 05:01:42 AM |
|
|
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 11:04:50 AM |
|
|
"Jim Ledford" <jimled@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:41A31896.F9041962@bellsouth.net...
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it personally to mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the right to tell
people to produce kids.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 11:39:52 AM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it personally to mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the right to tell
people to produce kids.
I did not understand gobsmacked. if in the future
I should end up gobsmacked will I need soap and hot
water to get 'it' off of me?
I saw in the Bible where God said be fruitful and
multiply. I've not seen in the Bible where God said
you better reproduce, as in you will do so.
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion which in and of itself is going to be a very
sad thing to me.
Jim - not in favor of abortion
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 12:37:09 PM |
|
|
"Jim Ledford" <jimled@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:41A375E8.229BEACE@bellsouth.net...
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it personally to
mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the right to
tell
people to produce kids.
I did not understand gobsmacked. if in the future
I should end up gobsmacked will I need soap and hot
water to get 'it' off of me?
I saw in the Bible where God said be fruitful and
multiply. I've not seen in the Bible where God said
you better reproduce, as in you will do so.
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion which in and of itself is going to be a very
sad thing to me.
Jim - not in favor of abortion
gobsmacked = speecheless.
Frankly if your god wanted us all to breed like rabbits he should of made
the world more inhabitable and more able to cope with a massive under age
population.
If deliberate childlessness means abortion to you then you are an even
bigger moron than Bryce Christensen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 12:45:02 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it personally to
mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the right to
tell
people to produce kids.
I did not understand gobsmacked. if in the future
I should end up gobsmacked will I need soap and hot
water to get 'it' off of me?
I saw in the Bible where God said be fruitful and
multiply. I've not seen in the Bible where God said
you better reproduce, as in you will do so.
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion which in and of itself is going to be a very
sad thing to me.
Jim - not in favor of abortion
gobsmacked = speecheless.
Frankly if your god wanted us all to breed like rabbits he should of made
the world more inhabitable and more able to cope with a massive under age
population.
If deliberate childlessness means abortion to you then you are an even
bigger moron than Bryce Christensen.
I could not figure out exactly what it was I said to
you which produced the need in you to call me a moron.
puzzled I was until I happened to look at the header
and realized I'd cross posted into the zone of loneliness.
why are you atheism so hateful?
why?
Jim - reading from alt.religion.christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 02:15:14 PM |
|
|
"Jim Ledford" <jimled@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:41A3852E.FA6E88C2@bellsouth.net...
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it personally to
mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the right to
tell
people to produce kids.
I did not understand gobsmacked. if in the future
I should end up gobsmacked will I need soap and hot
water to get 'it' off of me?
I saw in the Bible where God said be fruitful and
multiply. I've not seen in the Bible where God said
you better reproduce, as in you will do so.
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion which in and of itself is going to be a very
sad thing to me.
Jim - not in favor of abortion
gobsmacked = speecheless.
Frankly if your god wanted us all to breed like rabbits he should of made
the world more inhabitable and more able to cope with a massive under age
population.
If deliberate childlessness means abortion to you then you are an even
bigger moron than Bryce Christensen.
I could not figure out exactly what it was I said to
you which produced the need in you to call me a moron.
puzzled I was until I happened to look at the header
and realized I'd cross posted into the zone of loneliness.
why are you atheism so hateful?
why?
Jim - reading from alt.religion.christian
Because what any normal person would take to mean contraception you took to
mean abortion. Why? Some people do not want to have children and take
steps, including sterlisation, to make sure they don't even conceive. I am
deliberately childless. Ive never had an abortion.
Kathryn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 06:03:01 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
[....]
[....]
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it personally to
mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the right to
tell
people to produce kids.
I did not understand gobsmacked. if in the future
I should end up gobsmacked will I need soap and hot
water to get 'it' off of me?
I saw in the Bible where God said be fruitful and
multiply. I've not seen in the Bible where God said
you better reproduce, as in you will do so.
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion which in and of itself is going to be a very
sad thing to me.
Jim - not in favor of abortion
gobsmacked = speecheless.
Frankly if your god wanted us all to breed like rabbits he should of made
the world more inhabitable and more able to cope with a massive under age
population.
If deliberate childlessness means abortion to you then you are an even
bigger moron than Bryce Christensen.
I could not figure out exactly what it was I said to
you which produced the need in you to call me a moron.
puzzled I was until I happened to look at the header
and realized I'd cross posted into the zone of loneliness.
why are you atheism so hateful?
why?
Jim - reading from alt.religion.christian
Because what any normal person would take to mean contraception you took to
mean abortion. Why? Some people do not want to have children and take
steps, including sterlisation, to make sure they don't even conceive. I am
deliberately childless. Ive never had an abortion.
Kathryn
ok then you've been cautions with some forethought
concerning how you maintain your direction towards
your objective. that's a good thing to do and
usually produces the more efficient operation of
the machine, like better gas mileage.
when considering the overall picture. one who
becomes with child as in pregnant while still
wishing not to falter from their objective to
remain deliberately childless will most likely
become one of the 43 buzzillion abortions
performed in america each year.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
24 Nov 2004 01:38:27 AM |
|
|
"Jim Ledford" <jimled@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:41A3CFB5.CF0F5F5B@bellsouth.net...
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
[....]
[....]
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it personally
to
mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the right
to
tell
people to produce kids.
I did not understand gobsmacked. if in the future
I should end up gobsmacked will I need soap and hot
water to get 'it' off of me?
I saw in the Bible where God said be fruitful and
multiply. I've not seen in the Bible where God said
you better reproduce, as in you will do so.
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion which in and of itself is going to be a very
sad thing to me.
Jim - not in favor of abortion
gobsmacked = speecheless.
Frankly if your god wanted us all to breed like rabbits he should of
made
the world more inhabitable and more able to cope with a massive under
age
population.
If deliberate childlessness means abortion to you then you are an even
bigger moron than Bryce Christensen.
I could not figure out exactly what it was I said to
you which produced the need in you to call me a moron.
puzzled I was until I happened to look at the header
and realized I'd cross posted into the zone of loneliness.
why are you atheism so hateful?
why?
Jim - reading from alt.religion.christian
Because what any normal person would take to mean contraception you took
to
mean abortion. Why? Some people do not want to have children and take
steps, including sterlisation, to make sure they don't even conceive. I
am
deliberately childless. Ive never had an abortion.
Kathryn
ok then you've been cautions with some forethought
concerning how you maintain your direction towards
your objective. that's a good thing to do and
usually produces the more efficient operation of
the machine, like better gas mileage.
when considering the overall picture. one who
becomes with child as in pregnant while still
wishing not to falter from their objective to
remain deliberately childless will most likely
become one of the 43 buzzillion abortions
performed in america each year.
Jim
And again you do not think that childless couples are going to be the least
likely to have an abortion, instead of single women and those who already
have several children and cannot afford another.
You are the one with the decidely warped mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
24 Nov 2004 05:24:00 AM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
[....]
[....]
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it personally
to
mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the right
to
tell
people to produce kids.
I did not understand gobsmacked. if in the future
I should end up gobsmacked will I need soap and hot
water to get 'it' off of me?
I saw in the Bible where God said be fruitful and
multiply. I've not seen in the Bible where God said
you better reproduce, as in you will do so.
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion which in and of itself is going to be a very
sad thing to me.
Jim - not in favor of abortion
gobsmacked = speecheless.
Frankly if your god wanted us all to breed like rabbits he should of
made
the world more inhabitable and more able to cope with a massive under
age
population.
If deliberate childlessness means abortion to you then you are an even
bigger moron than Bryce Christensen.
I could not figure out exactly what it was I said to
you which produced the need in you to call me a moron.
puzzled I was until I happened to look at the header
and realized I'd cross posted into the zone of loneliness.
why are you atheism so hateful?
why?
Jim - reading from alt.religion.christian
Because what any normal person would take to mean contraception you took
to
mean abortion. Why? Some people do not want to have children and take
steps, including sterlisation, to make sure they don't even conceive. I
am
deliberately childless. Ive never had an abortion.
Kathryn
ok then you've been cautions with some forethought
concerning how you maintain your direction towards
your objective. that's a good thing to do and
usually produces the more efficient operation of
the machine, like better gas mileage.
when considering the overall picture. one who
becomes with child as in pregnant while still
wishing not to falter from their objective to
remain deliberately childless will most likely
become one of the 43 buzzillion abortions
performed in america each year.
Jim
And again you do not think that childless couples are going to be the least
likely to have an abortion, instead of single women and those who already
have several children and cannot afford another.
somehow, each year in america some 43 buzzillion abortions are performed.
You are the one with the decidely warped mind.
since you can't communicate without your little
meaningless digs I'll leave you to your way in your way.
have a nice atheist atheism kind of a day and enjoy
your application of the last word.
good bye
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
26 Nov 2004 04:57:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:03:01 -0500, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
[....]
[....]
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it personally to
mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the right to
tell
people to produce kids.
I did not understand gobsmacked. if in the future
I should end up gobsmacked will I need soap and hot
water to get 'it' off of me?
I saw in the Bible where God said be fruitful and
multiply. I've not seen in the Bible where God said
you better reproduce, as in you will do so.
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion which in and of itself is going to be a very
sad thing to me.
Jim - not in favor of abortion
gobsmacked = speecheless.
Frankly if your god wanted us all to breed like rabbits he should of made
the world more inhabitable and more able to cope with a massive under age
population.
If deliberate childlessness means abortion to you then you are an even
bigger moron than Bryce Christensen.
I could not figure out exactly what it was I said to
you which produced the need in you to call me a moron.
puzzled I was until I happened to look at the header
and realized I'd cross posted into the zone of loneliness.
why are you atheism so hateful?
why?
Jim - reading from alt.religion.christian
Because what any normal person would take to mean contraception you took to
mean abortion. Why? Some people do not want to have children and take
steps, including sterlisation, to make sure they don't even conceive. I am
deliberately childless. Ive never had an abortion.
Kathryn
ok then you've been cautions with some forethought
concerning how you maintain your direction towards
your objective. that's a good thing to do and
usually produces the more efficient operation of
the machine, like better gas mileage.
when considering the overall picture. one who
becomes with child as in pregnant while still
wishing not to falter from their objective to
remain deliberately childless will most likely
become one of the 43 buzzillion abortions
performed in america each year.
(sigh) There are many reasons for a lady who had intended to bear to
term to change her mind. Such can be the most responsible thing to
do. Too bad, Christians are busy being part of overall problems
instead of the solutions.
--
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: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 12:55:03 PM |
|
|
Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:41A3852E.FA6E88C2@bellsouth.net:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it
personally to mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the
right to tell
people to produce kids.
I did not understand gobsmacked. if in the future
I should end up gobsmacked will I need soap and hot
water to get 'it' off of me?
I saw in the Bible where God said be fruitful and
multiply. I've not seen in the Bible where God said
you better reproduce, as in you will do so.
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion which in and of itself is going to be a very
sad thing to me.
Jim - not in favor of abortion
gobsmacked = speecheless.
Frankly if your god wanted us all to breed like rabbits he should of
made the world more inhabitable and more able to cope with a massive
under age population.
If deliberate childlessness means abortion to you then you are an
even bigger moron than Bryce Christensen.
I could not figure out exactly what it was I said to
you which produced the need in you to call me a moron.
Which tends to support the label.
puzzled I was until I happened to look at the header
and realized I'd cross posted into the zone of loneliness.
why are you atheism so hateful?
Why are you jeezmoids so stupid?
why?
Why, indeed.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 02:19:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:45:02 -0500, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it personally to
mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the right to
tell
people to produce kids.
I did not understand gobsmacked. if in the future
I should end up gobsmacked will I need soap and hot
water to get 'it' off of me?
I saw in the Bible where God said be fruitful and
multiply. I've not seen in the Bible where God said
you better reproduce, as in you will do so.
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion which in and of itself is going to be a very
sad thing to me.
Jim - not in favor of abortion
gobsmacked = speecheless.
Frankly if your god wanted us all to breed like rabbits he should of made
the world more inhabitable and more able to cope with a massive under age
population.
If deliberate childlessness means abortion to you then you are an even
bigger moron than Bryce Christensen.
I could not figure out exactly what it was I said to
you which produced the need in you to call me a moron.
puzzled I was until I happened to look at the header
and realized I'd cross posted into the zone of loneliness.
LOL, we aren't the ones so lonely that we need to make up gods.
why are you atheism so hateful?
We aren't hateful although we do tend to be very intellegent and that
lately is often been put down as bad and immoral by the stupid and
those that only pretend to be moral. Why would ~you~ jump to such a
conclusion?
why?
Why conflate the term deliberate childness to something as unrelated
as abortion? That was silly. It was someone else's term, why would
you put words in his mouth?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
26 Nov 2004 04:55:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:45:02 -0500, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it personally to
mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the right to
tell
people to produce kids.
I did not understand gobsmacked. if in the future
I should end up gobsmacked will I need soap and hot
water to get 'it' off of me?
I saw in the Bible where God said be fruitful and
multiply. I've not seen in the Bible where God said
you better reproduce, as in you will do so.
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion which in and of itself is going to be a very
sad thing to me.
Jim - not in favor of abortion
gobsmacked = speecheless.
Frankly if your god wanted us all to breed like rabbits he should of made
the world more inhabitable and more able to cope with a massive under age
population.
If deliberate childlessness means abortion to you then you are an even
bigger moron than Bryce Christensen.
I could not figure out exactly what it was I said to
you which produced the need in you to call me a moron.
puzzled I was until I happened to look at the header
and realized I'd cross posted into the zone of loneliness.
What 'zone of loneliness' would that be, oh liar for jesus?
why are you atheism so hateful?
Typical, nutcase, disagreement equal hate. Gotta love that christian
projection.
why?
Jim - reading from alt.religion.christian
--
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: "Brenda Nelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
24 Nov 2004 03:41:01 PM |
|
|
Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<41A375E8.229BEACE@bellsouth.net>...
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it personally to mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the right to tell
people to produce kids.
I did not understand gobsmacked. if in the future
I should end up gobsmacked will I need soap and hot
water to get 'it' off of me?
I saw in the Bible where God said be fruitful and
multiply. I've not seen in the Bible where God said
you better reproduce, as in you will do so.
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion which in and of itself is going to be a very
sad thing to me.
Not nearly as sad as being forced to carry to term when you don't want
to.
Jim - not in favor of abortion
Jim, when you have a uterus, you get to have an opinion on abortion.
Until then, shut the ***** up.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Chief Wrangler and Ramrod Emeritus
(and Professor of Feline Thermometrics)
EAC Equine Transportation Command/Carne Seca Division
in the Prefecture of Baja, Arizona
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 02:49:27 PM |
|
|
Jim Ledford wrote:
< snip >
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion
Why?
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 02:58:57 PM |
|
|
"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:30hm2pF3174d2U1@uni-berlin.de...
Jim Ledford wrote:
< snip >
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve abortion
Why?
Seriously. While I do have one child, I "deliberately" made sure I couldn't
have another. However, if my tubes somehow became untied and I became
pregnant, I would not abort the baby despite the risk to both it and myself
at my age.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 03:28:24 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:30hm2pF3174d2U1@uni-berlin.de...
Jim Ledford wrote:
< snip >
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve abortion
Why?
Seriously. While I do have one child, I "deliberately" made sure I couldn't
have another. However, if my tubes somehow became untied and I became
pregnant, I would not abort the baby despite the risk to both it and myself
at my age.
Yeah. I was married for ten years and only had one child. We didn't
need abortions to prevent having more, and we both agreed that we
wouldn't have gotten one if Brenda had gotten pregnant again.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 03:36:53 PM |
|
|
"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:30hobpF30008nU1@uni-berlin.de...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:30hm2pF3174d2U1@uni-berlin.de...
Jim Ledford wrote:
< snip >
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve abortion
Why?
Seriously. While I do have one child, I "deliberately" made sure I
couldn't have another. However, if my tubes somehow became untied and I
became pregnant, I would not abort the baby despite the risk to both it
and myself at my age.
Yeah. I was married for ten years and only had one child. We didn't need
abortions to prevent having more, and we both agreed that we wouldn't have
gotten one if Brenda had gotten pregnant again.
One of my SILs has been married for 20 years, only one child and was pretty
positive they weren't going to be able to have another. Guess who's having
a baby in July? She freaked when her sister asked her "Well, what are you
going to do?" She wasn't initially thrilled about having a baby at 40, but
now is looking forward to it.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
26 Nov 2004 05:02:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:36:53 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:30hobpF30008nU1@uni-berlin.de...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:30hm2pF3174d2U1@uni-berlin.de...
Jim Ledford wrote:
< snip >
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve abortion
Why?
Seriously. While I do have one child, I "deliberately" made sure I
couldn't have another. However, if my tubes somehow became untied and I
became pregnant, I would not abort the baby despite the risk to both it
and myself at my age.
Yeah. I was married for ten years and only had one child. We didn't need
abortions to prevent having more, and we both agreed that we wouldn't have
gotten one if Brenda had gotten pregnant again.
One of my SILs has been married for 20 years, only one child and was pretty
positive they weren't going to be able to have another. Guess who's having
a baby in July? She freaked when her sister asked her "Well, what are you
going to do?" She wasn't initially thrilled about having a baby at 40, but
now is looking forward to it.
(wince) The teenage years again when the parent is almost a senior
citizen.
--
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 02:39:33 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:49:27 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
< snip >
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion
Why?
Because he says so.
I have no children; I'm 44 years old; I have never had an abortion. I
have deliberately remained childless---- *POOF!* goes Jim's belief!
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
--
"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 04:54:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:39:52 -0500, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
kathryn wrote:
Jim Ledford wrote:
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
I didn't not understand the comment, although I took it personally to mean
contraception. I'm just gobsmacked that he thinks he has the right to tell
people to produce kids.
I did not understand gobsmacked. if in the future
I should end up gobsmacked will I need soap and hot
water to get 'it' off of me?
I saw in the Bible where God said be fruitful and
multiply. I've not seen in the Bible where God said
you better reproduce, as in you will do so.
Same thing.
IMHO "Deliberate childlessness" is going to involve
abortion which in and of itself is going to be a very
sad thing to me.
It can involve abortion.
Jim - not in favor of abortion
In a better world the ladies wouldn't become pregnant unless they
wanted to. Thing is-the deliberate fundamentalist Republican
destruction of the US economy adds to the overall problems.
--
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: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
23 Nov 2004 06:51:02 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:01:42 -0500, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
in news message <41A31896.F9041962@bellsouth.net> wrote:
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
birth control
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brenda Nelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
24 Nov 2004 03:37:46 PM |
|
|
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message news:<inc6q0hd4mp813tbm1hapjom677njl9v7u@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:01:42 -0500, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
in news message <41A31896.F9041962@bellsouth.net> wrote:
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
birth control
If it's even still available after they finish rearranging our society.
Oh, and you better hope to high heaven that it doesn't fail on you.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Chief Wrangler and Ramrod Emeritus
(and Professor of Feline Thermometrics)
EAC Equine Transportation Command/Carne Seca Division
in the Prefecture of Baja, Arizona
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
25 Nov 2004 02:54:51 PM |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2004 13:37:46 -0800, (Brenda Nelson)
in news message <311596a5.0411241337.58fbbdd2@posting.google.com>
wrote:
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message news:<inc6q0hd4mp813tbm1hapjom677njl9v7u@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:01:42 -0500, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
in news message <41A31896.F9041962@bellsouth.net> wrote:
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
birth control
If it's even still available after they finish rearranging our society.
I'm sure that some of the religious right want to ban all forms of
birth control immediately. They feel it gives women too much freedom
to engage in sex without the consequence of pregnancy looming over
them.
Oh, and you better hope to high heaven that it doesn't fail on you.
Some people are very uncomfortable with female sexuality.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Christofascists take another look at "protecting marriage" |
26 Nov 2004 04:50:28 PM |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2004 13:37:46 -0800, (Brenda Nelson)
wrote:
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message news:<inc6q0hd4mp813tbm1hapjom677njl9v7u@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:01:42 -0500, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
in news message <41A31896.F9041962@bellsouth.net> wrote:
kathryn 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."
Deliberate childlessness? WTF?!
abortion.
birth control
If it's even still available after they finish rearranging our society.
Oh, and you better hope to high heaven that it doesn't fail on you.
Welcome back to the dark ages and back alleys of the coat hanger.
These fuckwits really hate women.
--
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: "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
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
