Post #135,288
1/13/04 3:38:08 AM
|
It's all of a part
1) Infrastructure was left to decline after the war. Suddenly the very people we bombed flat were making better steel than us. Roads rotted, bridges rusted, cities fell into decay - while American kids were taught to pledge and hate the Commie.
2) The culture of "more" demanded more house, more yard, more money, more everything. Instead of banking up a pile of savings, the imperative was to get into debt as fast as possible, then work like a slave to pay it all off.
3) Kids get sick of bombs and pledges, so they reject the entire ball of wax - morals, traditions, ethical grounding.
4) Along comes a movement - feminism - that doubles the workforce for the same amount of work, thus halving the doable work by fathers attempting to keep families together, and removing the mothers from the kids right when they need them the most. The subsitute - a 20 inch black and white nipple/mentor/baby sitter.
5) One day it dawns on everyone that we don't make the best things any more - that we're in deep debt - that the cities have crumbled and become depopulated. The people are stupefied with drugs, relations between the sexes degenerate to animal humping, marriage is a sick joke. Still, it's not too late. Feminism works!
6) Along comes Reagan and throws all fiscal restraint out the window. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney.
7) A small bubble in the 90s - the end of the Cold War, a new toy, a one-time expansion of technical infrastructure. It all goes to hell overnight as the balsa wood foundation gets soggy and gives way. At the same time, feminism has crowned.
I say it is a miserable idea, a great forced social experiment like Communism, rooted in a terrible destructive abstraction with no connection to the actual reality of living. Our kids are blind stupid zombies sucking away on BOTH CRT nipples - who can neither spell nor find Arizona, but know all the codes.
-drl
|
Post #135,390
1/13/04 10:55:22 AM
|
Reading a little extra into that, aren't you?
The article has nothing to do with feminism. The only thing related is that they bring in commentary from a woman who was laid off by Levis in an earlier round of layoffs.
Oh! Oh! Evil feminist! Taking men's jobs!
Except that the textile industry has been dominated by women as far back as you want to look. Whether you look at today, the Industrial Revolution, or women spinning and working the loom before that, textiles have been associated with women. Earlier it was because it was a job that you could do in the home. Later it was because the pay sucked.
In your rant about the decay of US society, only one bulletpoint addresses feminism. Many of the key people behind other bulletpoints (eg Ronald Reagan) most emphatically were not feminists. As for the one bulletpoint directly about feminism (item 4), if women have halved the doable work, then why are we men working longer hours than we used to? And about bullet 5, look at the order of bullets 3 and 4. You got the order historically accurate, the second wave of feminism came after the questioning of social values in the 60's. And the stuff that you complain about in bullet 5 is an outgrowth of bullet 3, not bullet 4.
I rather think that you are making feminism out to be a scapegoat for things that aren't its fault.
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #135,596
1/14/04 3:12:51 AM
|
Re: Reading a little extra into that, aren't you?
I need only quote a single statistic:
70% of black kids are born outside marriage.
The conclusion is obvious.
Today on the TV in the observation ward - commercial in which a small girl turns in an annual report complete with DVD she made with Mom's computer, instead of the asked-for 1 page essay on Thomas Jefferson. Message: Girls are good, boys are stupid (there were boys in the commerical looking on, dumbfounded). Immediately afterward - Poor Dumb Man doesn't know how to buy a car online - thank God his woman is nearby to save his poor helpless self. All over advertising media the message is - men are inferior, women are the bomb. You may not pay attention to popular media but I do - and the consistent message is that men are 1) inferior and stupid 2) unnecessary. One of the most popular TV shows features a hottie living with her gay friend - men, insofar as they are needed by this princess, must be gay.
The entire direction of the culture is to negate the role of the Actual Masculine - that is, the virtues of rationality, inspiration, leadership, self-detachment, decision-making. This comes from one and only one source - radical feminism. There are no college course in "Men's studies". Men supply one and only one thing - a dick to spew the child-seeds, and that can be replaced by something that takes D-batteries. Female homosexuality is regarded as a turn-on at best, or a harmless distraction at worst, rather than an abnormal psychic arrangement. When Madonna slathers Britney, it's a lascivious joke - think of what would be said if Pete Rose grabbed Paul Tagliabue's crotch.
IMP it's sick - it's a destructive, forced social experiment that is no better than the collectivism of Paul Pot, and in some ways worse, because the destruction wreaked to the psyche of men is hidden from the unreflective mass of male humans, who are not allowed to be fathers, not allowed to make decisions, not allowed to run their own lives.
-drl
|
Post #135,622
1/14/04 7:29:58 AM
1/14/04 7:37:32 AM
|
Cart before horse
Female homosexuality is regarded as a turn-on at best, or a harmless distraction at worst, rather than an abnormal psychic arrangement. When Madonna slathers Britney, it's a lascivious joke - think of what would be said if Pete Rose grabbed Paul Tagliabue's crotch. Face it - women (in past, as well as since '60s) have always been more emotionally expressive - while many males appear to come equipped with a natural reluctance to display Any emotion except perhaps, aggression.. ie the much-admired John Wayne model. (The 'turn-on' phrase is properly finished, 'to males') - men are clearly more simplistic in fantsizing - and mere nakedness will do it; obv. women like naked men's appearances too -- but most require a bit more than Just that, to be interested. You are employing reductio of the calibre of the same kind of crap that is fed to young boys - as reinforces that utter discomfort with normal human emotions -shared by both genders!- and especially: the displaying of such. In a Bay Area killing in 12/02 of a ~male kid who was, what is now called *'transgender' - 'she' was killed because she made the fatal mistake of attending a "small party" with new acquaintances, without the support group, her (female) friends - who had decided not to go. S/he was killed simply because it was discovered that she was 'male'. (S/he looked quite feminine, and of course! had long endured all the usual Murican virulent forms of abuse for the fact of her clearly Different sense-of-self). Remember Our Xenophobia? * officially, I'd think, for having recently told his mother. "I feel like a woman trapped in this body". Here are quotes from a lengthy article as appeard in a mag of the [link|http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/12/22/CM173274.DTL| SF Chron], following this atrocity Psychologists and specialists in the field of gender identity say such attacks often stem from a fear of what's inside of oneself. In many cases, victims of hate crimes are pummeled, as if there were something to be exorcised.
In one telling account of what had happened, Newark resident Brian Seabrands, who was not at the party but had heard the rumors, told police that things went wrong after guys at a party "found out it (Eddie) wasn't a chick, beat the hell out of it, killed it and supposedly buried it in South Lake Tahoe."
The overwhelming majority of hate crimes involve men.
"There is a fear of the feminine hidden in the masculine self, and somehow that translates into violence," said Anne Fausto-Sterling, a Brown University professor who works with transgendered people and has written several books on human sexuality, including "Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality." She believes that such bias has less to do with class or race than education and familiarization with gender issues.
"The more these other modes of existence become part of the familiar, the less threatening they seem." Note: the use of the non-human OBJECTIVE 'IT' - exactly what I mean about the degree of both sexual and sensual pathology within a significant set of Murican retards, especially young Murican males: perhaps the most self-fearful of any nameable group. They KILLED THIS PERSON - for their pathologically terrifying self-doubts Q-fucking-ED Yes.. Yes.. you will protest the idea of specialists in the field of gender identity and much which passes for psych -- while you will express your own equivalents according-to-You. No? We don't have space (or patience) to set out the full range of homo-sap devious possible qualities [with extreme samples found in both genders] - and which ones are more/less pandered-to within this Puritan besotted shallow culture: but let's -at least!- not settle for the same shoddy quality of analysis as the Culture does, shall we not? If you trouble to read this whole story, I believe implicit in that - is much I'd say to counter your brand of solipsism on the "proper roles of males, females" - and left out of your mentation - those who are confused (or very clear) about How they perceive themselves as Different from the body-shape they drew". (Imagine John Wayne's response to THAT idea.!. and That is How It Is in the bathos of this fucked-up juvie-culture.) ie. Your analytic brilliance in some areas - simply is Not universal, IMhO. Ashton Men with Guts are able to cry (maybe sometimes.. Instead-of 'killing' or killing) Edit; unfortunately the SFGate archives don't supply the pictures - which put faces on the many involved persons, the gland-fucked kids and the killed-kid.
Edited by Ashton
Jan. 14, 2004, 07:37:32 AM EST
|
Post #135,647
1/14/04 9:31:26 AM
|
keep john wayne out of it
as quoted by another masculine epitomised of a similar era, for sheer fun give me a 12yo boy every time. Errol Flynn.
this shit aint new.
thanx,
bill
same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #135,630
1/14/04 8:33:26 AM
|
Re: Reading a little extra into that, aren't you?
You put up one tragic story of a person with an abnormal disorder (most creatures, human or not, are quite satisfied with the gender choice Fate made for them - and this is the definition of "normal") in contrast to the millions of men who have been wrenched from their traditional roles of family leader and provider. I see these poor wretches all the time - heads instinctively bowed, as if they are not good enough to even look out proudly on the world. Likewise, I see all the time and everywhere women toting children, often many of them, alone - one side of the story. For blacks, 70 percent of them by statistical definition are not allowed to have a "normal" mother-father upbringing - and surely the other 30 percent must deal with a father who is constantly told by white society that he is inferior. Half of all marriages end in divorce, after just over 7 years. Often these divorces in normal families end with the man bearing the brunt of the finanical and emotional burden (he gets neither house nor kids). So even if a kid finds himself in a normal, 2-parent family, chances are better than half that by 10, he will have lost one or the other parent - and almost always the father - and often he will have witnessed a brutal battle between his parents over him.
Compared to this gigantic societal suicidal tragedy, the sad fate of transgenders is rather trivial. And I might point out, that the very hatred unilluminated childern express toward the "different" is a direct consequence of hacking their natural software, the stuff that tells the male to act and think like a male and not a hand-maiden for the feminist overlords.
-drl
|
Post #135,633
1/14/04 8:38:27 AM
|
Shirley...
... a hand-maiden for the feminist overlords. Surely, that should be "overladies"?
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
You know you're doing good work when you get flamed by an idiot. -- [link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/34218.html|Andrew Wittbrodt]
|
Post #135,673
1/14/04 11:10:59 AM
1/14/04 4:41:52 PM
|
Again, you're ascribing the wrong cause
If you want some insight into why so many blacks are born outside of marriage, why not look at the snippets of black culture on public display? Go listen to some rap songs. Get back to me on whether those attitudes might explain some single pregnancies, and also get back to me on whether those attitudes are very feminist-friendly.
Right.
As for the commercials, advertising likes to divide the world into "us" vs "them", with both you and the advertiser on the side of "us". Advertising does this because it is effective. The result is that you are unlikely to like any ad which is targeted at women, while it is easy for you to miss the equal offensiveness of ads that are targeted at men instead.
I would give examples of ads that tick off women, but as you note, I can't be bothered to watch TV. (Partly because of things like this.)
About the role of men. Pick up any "woman's magazine" and read it. You'll find that one of the main topics is men, the choosing of, the attracting of and the satisfying of. Scan for references to the importance of marriage. Our culture is hardly monolithic. The attitudes that you complain about seem to me to be minority positions.
And gays. You're right. Female homosexuality is treated by mainstream culture mostly as a turn-on. And more than a few men definitely react to it that way. I know quite a few who do. Male homosexuality is not treated as a turn-on. It terrifies most men, and doesn't seem to interest most women. This difference is reflected in the fact that gay men are more often the targets of violence than gay women. I'm not entirely sure why the discrepancy exists, but I'll agree that it's real.
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Edited by ben_tilly
Jan. 14, 2004, 04:41:52 PM EST
|
Post #135,732
1/14/04 3:56:45 PM
|
Additional causes plus a small edit.
The fact that a large percentage of the male black population is in prison contributes as well to the "single mother" problem. And gays. You're right. Female homosexuality is treated by mainstream culture mostly as a turn-on. And more than a few men definitely react to it that way. I know quite a few who do. Male homosexuality is not treated as a turn-on. It terrifies most men, and doesn't seem to interest most women. This difference is reflected in the fact that gay men are more often the targets of violence than gay men. I'm not entirely sure why the discrepancy exists, but I'll agree that it's real. I assume that the italicized phrase should read gay men are more often the targets of violence than gay women - which is most definitely true. I have a blue sign on my door. It says "If this sign is red, you're moving too fast."
|
Post #135,761
1/14/04 5:27:12 PM
|
Puritanism is ignorant of, simultaneously opposed-to an idea
that there is a spectrum of 'sexuality' - which, after all is far MORE [often!] about pleasurable connection, sensual touching, *intimacy* .. than about the very occasional procreation.
Of Course! the male homosexual is threatening to the typ. young male - whose mindset is of the {again} fucking Digital sort: Tarzan / Jane.
He has no concept of, "have you nothing in between?" Clearly, more women do have such a concept - *naturally* as, females generally ARE more in-touch with subtle feelings around sexuality besides: Get That Orgasm andthenthecigarette.
(And tell the guys, Hey! I nailed ___ ) Nah, she ain't no slut.. less'n she does it with anyone Else cha cha cha
cf. The unexamined life isn't worth living.
Murica: Cathedral of the unexamined life - we're too busy shopping, or scrabbling to get the wherewithal for the Next acquisition. So we can show it. Then - off to the landfill. Damn.. now there's a 3.4 GHz. Ditch this junk!
I believe this, only sl. exaggerated shtick - explains well enough. (The 'queer' female is no threat: can be dismissed by Digital-think as - a cute defective. Doesn't prompt any introspection in those scared-to-Look.. inside.)
Ashton
|
Post #135,767
1/14/04 5:47:42 PM
|
IMO, Ashton...
...the Queer female isn't dismissed by the prototypical North American Potbellied Beersucker as a "cute defective" - it's an opportunity to "correct" their deficient sexuality, and get two women at the same time.
Gay men, on the other hand, scare the living daylights out of other men, because IMO a good portion of the male species hates thinking of themselves as the object of sexual desire for other men. "They'll turn me into one of THEM if they get their way" and all that...
Yer using your brain for thinking about the dick again... ;)
I have a blue sign on my door. It says "If this sign is red, you're moving too fast."
|
Post #135,769
1/14/04 5:49:16 PM
|
ICLRPD (new thread)
Created as new thread #135768 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=135768|ICLRPD]
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #135,775
1/14/04 6:10:36 PM
|
Re: Puritanism is ignorant of, simultaneously opposed-to an
Humping has nothing to do with the kind of issue I'm trying to get at. Indeed one of the errors of feminism is the raising of humping to some kind of metaphysical principle. Marriage should not be primarily about humping, and indeed in a better society, people could allow themselves to maintain a stable family while obtaining their humpage elsewhere, should it be necessary. Marriage should be primarily about raising children with one father and one mother.
-drl
|
Post #135,776
1/14/04 6:16:57 PM
|
Sorry, can't ignore this one.
Marriage should be primarily about raising children with one father and one mother. Marriage is NOT about raising kids, that's PARENTING. Marriage is about two people who love and commit to each other, and want to spend their lives together. There is NO requirement to have children to have a marriage, and no shame in having a very happy and successful marriage without choosing to have children. Nightowl >8#
"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman
"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
|
Post #135,778
1/14/04 6:25:12 PM
|
Re: Sorry, can't ignore this one.
Thank you for making my point, complete with the new age, feminist Pabulum word with no meaning - PARENTING.
I say, bullshit. Marriage is and always was about the merging and continuity of families, which are (or should be) the stable units of society. A society is as stable or unstable as its fundamental units. The idea of what makes a family may change but not the basic idea that unstable families result in an unstable - and therefore moribund - society.
-drl
|
Post #135,779
1/14/04 6:28:23 PM
|
Whatever
You are so deluded it isn't funny.
Believe whatever you want, you aren't worth it. I spoke my mind about marriage, and my opinion has not changed. And FWIW I am NOT a feminist.
Nightowl >8#
"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman
"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
|
Post #135,836
1/15/04 1:00:03 AM
|
Fundamental Units (new thread)
Created as new thread #135835 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=135835|Fundamental Units]
-drl
|
Post #135,862
1/15/04 9:30:19 AM
|
Ross, the Puritan........I never would have thought it!
Marriage is and always was about the merging and continuity of families, which are (or should be) the stable units of society. Rex Reed couldn't have said it better himself. My question to you is: Why are you, of all people, trying to make Jerry F oularwell's case (and badly, too!)? jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #135,786
1/14/04 7:57:35 PM
|
So you are in favor of gay marriages?
Marriage is about two people who love and commit to each other, and want to spend their lives together. There is NO requirement to have children to have a marriage, and no shame in having a very happy and successful marriage without choosing to have children. Alex
The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled. -- Plutarch
|
Post #135,788
1/14/04 8:06:35 PM
|
I never said that
All I said was there is more to marriage than having children, that a perfectly happy marriage can exist without any children in it, and that the sole reason for marriage is not just to have children.
Nightowl >8#
"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman
"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
|
Post #135,789
1/14/04 8:21:47 PM
1/14/04 8:48:56 PM
|
You never said anything against it either
The definition of marriage that you gave makes gay marriage fit perfectly.
The definition of marriage that you gave also makes it OK for people over 50 to get married.
I find it amusing that many people have no problem when an older couple marries, but are vehemently against gay marriages, "because marriage is about kids."
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Edited by ben_tilly
Jan. 14, 2004, 08:48:56 PM EST
|
Post #135,790
1/14/04 8:28:05 PM
|
Stop putting words in my mouth
I never said I was against OR for gay marriage. I simply said that marriage did not require children. I never stated my views about gay marriage either way and I don't appreciate you deciding what I think.
Besides, gay couples can also have children, just not each others.
I don't think age OR sexual preference have anything to do with my original statement, that children are not necessary for a happy or successful marriage.
Nightowl >8#
"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman
"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
|
Post #135,795
1/14/04 8:50:17 PM
|
Hint - Nobody said you did.
Alex and Ben were just pointing out logical inferences that could be made from your initial comment. They're not putting words in your mouth.
You said earlier that you don't get hints. It's funny that you seem to be willing to jump to conclusions.... That's often a sing of insecurity, in my experience.
On gay marriage, my feelings are that the state should be more interested in whether two adult people are living together as a family. The state should be interested in promoting families. It shouldn't matter if the people have the same or different gender. But I think the issue is bigger than that. For instance, my grandfather and his sister lived together for many years after their spouses died. IMO, they should have had all of the benefits that a married couple had as far as the state is concerned. Restricting the debate to children or sex does a disservice to committed relationships that aren't sexual and don't involve children. So for me, it boils down to commitment that two people make to each other. If you're an adult and voluntarily make a commitment to an unrelated person to form a family, then you should be able to be married. Similarly, if two related people, like my grandfather and great aunt, are living together as a family, then they should have all the rights of a man and wife (being able to file joint tax returns, having medical rights that a spouse would have, survivorship, etc., etc.).
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #135,798
1/14/04 8:57:46 PM
|
Re: Hint - Nobody said you did.
You said earlier that you don't get hints. It's funny that you seem to be willing to jump to conclusions.... That's often a sing of insecurity, in my experience. Well, I was mostly confused. I believed Alex's statement to be saying that because I wrote what I did, I was in favor of gay marriage. I see the logical inferences, but I thought they were applying them to me. Sorry if I read it wrong. See, I should stop trying to read what people are implying, and stick with the actual words. And yes, sometimes I do jump too quickly to conclusions, however it's something I've been trying to work on changing. The biggest problem is, I read what they wrote, and then I perceive that SOMETHING in my post made them believe x y or z about me. Maybe that's not the case, but it's usually where I screw up. So I search it and look for whatever gave them that impression. I didn't give my view on homosexuality, gay marriage or otherwise, because I find that is among the issues that tend to create very gray areas in terms of my religious beliefs, so I do not have solid yes/no answers in most cases about those sorts of issues. Nightowl >8#
"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman
"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
|
Post #135,797
1/14/04 8:57:04 PM
|
But I didn't - reading comprehension time
Your description: Marriage is about two people who love and commit to each other, and want to spend their lives together.Facts and timeline: - That description can perfectly fit a gay marriage, even though it says nothing about gay vs heterosexual.
- You were asked whether you are in favour of gay marriages. (Likely because what you said - probably accidentally - matches what gay marriage advocates say.)
- You said that you never said that you were in favour of gay marriage.
- I pointed out why the question was probably asked.
- You correctly pointed out that you never expressed a position either way on gay marriage.
- I'm pointing out now what I pointed out before. The statement as you gave it could fit gay marriage. I have no reason to believe that you intended this though.
Now please review the thread, keeping these facts in mind. Hopefully you will realize that nobody ever said what your opinion was. You were asked, but you haven't chosen to give it. You've apparently interpreted others as having said something what your opinion was, but that didn't actually happen. The long and short of it is that your position on marriage bears an accidental resemblance to what advocates of gay marriage say. Alex asked the obvious question. You apparently misunderstood why he asked, and the rest of the discussion cascaded from that. Hopefully it is all clear now. Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #135,799
1/14/04 9:00:50 PM
|
Re: But I didn't - reading comprehension time
Now please review the thread, keeping these facts in mind. Hopefully you will realize that nobody ever said what your opinion was. You were asked, but you haven't chosen to give it. You've apparently interpreted others as having said something what your opinion was, but that didn't actually happen. The long and short of it is that your position on marriage bears an accidental resemblance to what advocates of gay marriage say. Alex asked the obvious question. You apparently misunderstood why he asked, and the rest of the discussion cascaded from that. Hopefully it is all clear now. It is, I get it now. I didn't even know that was what gay advocates say, honestly. But yes, I misunderstood, as I explained in my previous post to Scott. Sorry about overreacting, I just tend to worry that my words really DID imply what someone gleans from them. Does that make sense? Nightowl >8#
"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman
"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
|
Post #135,867
1/15/04 10:26:07 AM
|
Yes, but....
before reacting to what you think might have been meant, make it clear that you also understand what what said. That way if your guess is wrong, you won't draw nearly the same reaction.
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #135,803
1/14/04 9:27:33 PM
|
Bingo!
Alex
The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled. -- Plutarch
|
Post #135,807
1/14/04 9:38:06 PM
|
childless and married are we?
Marriage is a religious act that depending on the religion (most REQUIRE childrun and often) any non religious state marriage is a tax convenience or a quaint desire to PRETEND to be religious and blend in.
DeSit is right about marriage.
thanx,
bill
same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #135,810
1/14/04 9:49:16 PM
|
You are incorrect.
My religious beliefs do NOT require children to be born of a marriage, and that does not make me any less a real Christian, either.
I choose to be childless, I do not deal with children. I still completely disagree with his view on marriage, sorry.
Nightowl >8#
"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman
"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
|
Post #135,813
1/14/04 9:53:19 PM
|
No need to be sorry. Your life, your choice.
Alex
The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled. -- Plutarch
|
Post #135,814
1/14/04 9:56:00 PM
|
Re: No need to be sorry. Your life, your choice.
Hehehe, I wasn't saying I was sorry about my choices in life, I was saying I was sorry that I still feel Ross's description of marriage is incorrect!
However, I should not be sorry about that either, it's what I believe! ;)
Nightowl >8#
"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman
"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
|
Post #135,815
1/14/04 10:00:23 PM
|
Depending on which Christian Sect you belong to
and which sect you married under that may or may not be correct. Most Christian Sects have an obligation to have children, like the Catholics for example. It is a sin for them to use any sort of birth control except the rythm method. I dont know which sect you are with so cant discuss theology on it unless you want to continue in Religion.
If you are the product of a State marriage it is a tax sham nothing more. Marriage is a religious thing that the States got invovlved with over monetary disposition. Since the advent of DNA and current contract law there is no rational for the state to be in the marriage business anymore, the laws simply need to be used correctly. A general power of attourney and a good will serves most of what civil benefits marriage gets. The other items like medical equality, survivorship of social security benifits need to be changed to reflect society as it currently exists.
Again I cannot debate with your theology since I dont know your affiliation and your feelings on remaining childless are your's and valid but again, marriage is a religious act (which was the object of doc's post) and Most normal religions demand children to be reproduced. More fodder for the mill so to speak.
thanx,
bill
same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #135,819
1/14/04 10:09:38 PM
1/14/04 10:12:21 PM
|
Re: Depending on which Christian Sect you belong to
and which sect you married under that may or may not be correct. Most Christian Sects have an obligation to have children, like the Catholics for example. It is a sin for them to use any sort of birth control except the rythm method. I dont know which sect you are with so cant discuss theology on it unless you want to continue in Religion. I know for a fact that the religion I practice does not require children, at least from the teachings of my old church, it was not ever stated as such. I'm not sure we married under any sect. I had my old preacher come up and perform the service at an entirely different church, but it was still considered a Christian marriage ceremony. So we are not the product of a State marriage. Again I cannot debate with your theology since I dont know your affiliation and your feelings on remaining childless are your's and valid but again, marriage is a religious act (which was the object of doc's post) and Most normal religions demand children to be reproduced. More fodder for the mill so to speak. The only title I know for my affiliation was Christian. I belonged to 4th Christian Church. The church I currently attend isn't my exact affiliation, it's Baptist, but I'm there for the time being. My church closed, and the current one is where I've wound up for now for a number of reasons. I don't choose to debate my theology, because I am dealing with my own issues about it still, and I don't feel that any of you would understand that. Nightowl >8# EDIT: P.S.This quote from the thread by Ross (Marriage should be primarily about raising children with one father and one mother.) is the part I was dealing with, nothing else, and my argument is simply that I disagree that marriage should be primarily about children.
"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman
"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
Edited by Nightowl
Jan. 14, 2004, 10:12:21 PM EST
|
Post #135,821
1/14/04 10:17:48 PM
|
No need to debate your religion at all
just wanted to make my point that marriage is a religious ceremony not a state function and most christian sects require kids.
No more no less
my point supports doc that marriage in the main requires children being tended by the birth mother and impregnating father in a family structure. Having kids outside of that structure is harmful to the kids. Your comment that marriage has nothing to do with kids is your opinion but not the opinion of the major christian faiths in america, or muslim or moonies for that matter.
Marriage is a religious function not a state function so your comment that parenting is not part of marriage is refuted by the major religions.
You are wrong
thanx,
bill
same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #135,822
1/14/04 10:22:50 PM
|
That isn't quite what I said
I don't recall saying the exact statement "marriage has nothing to do with kids", I said it wasn't dependent upon having children, that you could have a successful marriage without kids.
I also do not recall saying the exact statement "parenting is not part of marriage" I believe I said it did not have to be, not that it wasn't.
If I said either of these exact statements, exactly as you presented them, please show me where.
I don't consider myself wrong on this issue, it's how I believe and my opinion on it, therefore it isn't right or wrong, it's right or wrong for me.
Thanks.
Nightowl >8#
"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman
"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
|
Post #135,826
1/14/04 10:49:39 PM
|
So infertile people shouldn't be able to marry? (new thread)
Created as new thread #135825 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=135825|So infertile people shouldn't be able to marry?]
|
Post #135,857
1/15/04 8:58:10 AM
|
On Catholic birth control
Most Christian Sects have an obligation to have children, like the Catholics for example. It is a sin for them to use any sort of birth control except the rythm method. Question: What do you call women who rely on the r hythm method? Answer: Mothers. -----------------------------------------
"After months of searching and billions of dollars,
we've finally captured the man who had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 !"
-Rob Cordry, The Daily Show
|
Post #135,864
1/15/04 9:40:22 AM
|
Re: On Catholic birth control
The Irish have a Pope sanctioned birth control pill. It weights 2 tons. The wife rolls it up against the bedroom door and the husband can't get in...
|
Post #135,866
1/15/04 10:18:28 AM
|
State marriages are more than a tax sham
Like it or not, society gives a lot of weight to the word "married". And most people react to outward symbols of marriage (eg rings). Furthermore, most people have an emotional reaction when those symbols apply personally.
The magnitude of this effect shocked me after I got married. The reality of this effect is why I believe that marriage matters for people no matter how religious they are or aren't.
It is a label. It shouldn't matter. I can argue that until I'm blue in the face. But I'm human and irrational and the point of fact is that it does make a difference that equivalent legal arrangements can't.
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #135,942
1/15/04 6:37:44 PM
|
marriage matters to whom?
Could you define a little further please? Like it or not, society gives a lot of weight to the word "married". And most people react to outward symbols of marriage (eg rings). Furthermore, most people have an emotional reaction when those symbols apply personally. If I am understanding this statement you think exactly "what" reactions are gotten when a marriage partnership is perceived people dont hit on your "wife" makes you think she is chaste, chaste is a religious value not a fashion statement people dont think you are "gay" shouldnt matter what other people think Need better definition to the statement otherwise I think marriage==people think you might have a set of values defined by religion as opposed to being religious==pretnding to be religious to fit in (although you are very straightforward when speaking of your positions on religion) thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #135,996
1/15/04 9:30:47 PM
|
Immediate respect
At 21 when I said, "my wife", most people that I met responded with a lot more respect for the relationship than they would if I had said "my girlfriend", "my live-in girlfriend", etc. Despite my age, people recognized and reacted to the label.
I admit that some of the respect is that people would see the ring and not hit on us. (Random note: gays seem less deterred by a ring than heterosexuals. I've been told that that is because a lot of gays get married so to avoid discrimination, but intend all along to continue acting gay.) As someone who didn't want to deal with being hit on, it was nice to reduce that stress. Nothing there about feeling that she was chaste or not chaste. It just reduced the amount of stress, and is nice to have constant recognition that the world knows that I am in a committed relationship.
Similarly the label had an emotional impact on me. The level of commitment with marriage is much higher, and I felt myself react to that. One change was that this allowed me to engage on more difficult levels because I worried less about the other person leaving and more about the relationship.
A note that I should make. I come from a family that regards marriage less seriously than most do. First of all I wasn't raised to be particularly religious. Second, many close relatives have gone through multiple marriages, and cynically view them as temporary. Third, more than a couple of relatives viewed my marriage as temporary.
But even with a background that I would have thought would make me not react to being married, I had a surprisingly strong reaction.
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #136,004
1/15/04 9:44:25 PM
|
wondered if that was it
Similarly the label had an emotional impact on me. The level of commitment with marriage is much higher, and I felt myself react to that. One change was that this allowed me to engage on more difficult levels because I worried less about the other person leaving and more about the relationship. roped and tied I agree with that emotion. But the reason you had this emotion and why other people react is to the vestige of religious "dont touch a married woman". Just because you arnt personally religious doesnt mean the vestige of the religious thoughts on the matter in society at large didnt affect you subliminally. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #135,874
1/15/04 10:53:39 AM
|
deS gets better and better
Now infidelity is a good thing for marriage. What's next? Defending gay promiscuity?
--
"It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)"
-- James Lileks
|
Post #135,929
1/15/04 5:50:49 PM
|
Re: deS gets better and better
Huh? I've never cheated anyone and don't think I could do it. My claim was that marriage is more important than sex when kids are involved. When did I advocate infidelity? I despise cheaters.
-drl
|
Post #135,998
1/15/04 9:33:52 PM
|
Where you advocated infidelity is...
in [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=135775|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=135775] where you say, Marriage should not be primarily about humping, and indeed in a better society, people could allow themselves to maintain a stable family while obtaining their humpage elsewhere, should it be necessary.
If a married couple is "obtaining their humpage elsewhere", then that is marital infidelity in most people's books.
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #136,048
1/16/04 8:49:38 AM
|
Re: Where you advocated infidelity is...
Right, this was bitter sarcasm directed at those who would sacrifice their kids' well-being for a roll with a floozie or a soap-opera girlie-man. If you just have to do, then get it over with and get on with your family life.
-drl
|
Post #135,805
1/14/04 9:33:41 PM
|
yer last sentence is incorrect
having been on the wrong side of a bull dagger with a baseball bat :-)
thanx,
bill
same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #135,431
1/13/04 12:04:17 PM
|
But I argue that the workforce needed to be doubled
as business changed and the economy grew and needed the extra workers. Notice that women did not make it into upper management and that there is a glass ceiling at most organiztions that they cannot break. Hence the need for Feminism.
During the work days, children went to schools, so the mother could work. A realtive helped take care of the children until the mother could come home. Maybe the grandparents, maybe an aunt or uncle. My wife works and sometimes I take care of our son and sometimes my mother (my son's Grandmother) does it so I have some time to study for college. So in that example, Grandma babysits the children or child. In other cases a Daycare does it, or a Babysitter is hired.
TV is a privilege, not a babysitter. It can be taken away when the child exhibits bad behavior. It also should not be used too much. Encourage the child to read a b
ook instead of find something else to do. If he/she is too young to read a book, read a book to him/her instead.
We helped rebuild the countries that we bombed, and they improved their economy and learned from us how to do business and make better steal, etc. They were good students and quickly became masters of industry. When they could sell steal cheaper than US companies, of course orgnizations are going to buy from them. We created that situation, and it helps those countries.
As far as moral and ethical decline, society, drug use, marriage problems, well things have been heading that way as people take their rights for granted and refuse to take responsibility for their lives. They got serious issues, maybe a hole in their life, and they are trying to fill it with something. Being moral and ethical is not helping them, so they've rejected those concepts. Society, hey everyone else is doing it, why not do it themselves as well? Drugs are a quick fix to a perminate problem, a temporary high which has side-effects and can destroy lives. Marriage problems, ever since the wedding vows got taken out of the cerimonies, people moved away from religion or do not practice it anymore, and people became more secular and more selfish, all of a sudden Marriage is a different thing than it used to be. No trust or respect for the spouse, both spouses want their way and are unwilling to compromise, keep it up for a few years, have a few kids, it gets worse, a few more years and it is time for a divorse. Divorse Lawyers just love it that way, they get paid more. :)
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
