Message boards :
Politics :
Same Gender Marriage
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Terror Australis Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1817 Credit: 262,693,308 RAC: 44 |
I know enough of Es's background to support all that she has said, and have the standpoint that she does. I won't say any more than that. Not knowing Es I can't comment. But I would venture to say that for every "Es type" situation I could quote one where the woman was the prime instigator of the situation. Women are much better at psychological warfare than men are. T.A. |
John Clark Send message Joined: 29 Sep 99 Posts: 16515 Credit: 4,418,829 RAC: 0 |
I support Chris, as I am fairly aware of Es's situation and can understand her view point. This is a complex issue and each situation is unique in it's circumstances. I can thank God that Sheila and I got on and stayed together, and can now meet the Grand children, our 3 being grown up, after nearly 45 years of marriage. It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
I understand both view points. And I will say that parents far too often turn their children into pawns of hate during their divorces. I cry for the children. And having those parents still together is even worse for them. Janice |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Now here's a seasonal conundrum for supporters of the thread title. Hmm, seems this post started an anecdote fest, a report on a survey conducted at two shopping centres, with confusing references as to who was asked (there's an implication that it was the parents who provide the answers). The report indicates that there were at least 50 different requests, and a survey population of 2000, so the average number of requests for a given item was at most 40 (2% of 2000). Whether 10th place was above this average is not in the linked article. The circumstances of the respondents is not in the article (how many requests were from families where the requested parent had died?). To be frank, aside from generating debate the report on the survey is somewhat less than useful. Can we get back on topic? I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
... What you say I think and feel is your assumption. It bears no connection with reality. I've been to court multiple times with my current partner as he fought to keep contact with his children. I watched his ex wife lie repeatedly to the judge. I heard how she told the children that she would cut them off completely from her life if they tried to live with their dad. It was the most disgusting display of selfish behaviour I have ever seen. Well her youngest son now lives with us and will have very little to do with his mother. She did that herself. Some men just can't handle the stress this puts on them so they cut themselves off all together in order to survive. Boo bloody hoo. Being a parent is hard. It also means putting your kids first. The need to grow up and get over it. It's just as hard for the mother, but they don't get the option to just walk away. The problem is parents, who when they split, are so full of hate to the other they use the kids as a weapon against the other party, ignoring the effect this has on the children themselves. To hear one person you love bad mouthing another person you love and demanding that you take sides is traumatic for them. I totally agree with this...and tried to follow this when I split up with my kids father. I expected him to look after the kids half time and see them as often as the kids wanted to. Unfortunately TA, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Reality Internet Personality |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Now here's a seasonal conundrum for supporters of the thread title. The mods are welcome to move this current conversation to my gender bias thread if they so wish. Reality Internet Personality |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
|
Terror Australis Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1817 Credit: 262,693,308 RAC: 44 |
The best of Fred Hutchison Intelligent design vs. gay marriage Thanks for posting this ID. After reading the article in the link, I read several more of Fred Hutchinson's essays. While I might not have agreed with everything he was saying, it was a pleasure to read such well thought out, well written and logically presented articles. While I am pro-choice, his essay on Saving the crumbling liberal world view was a very interesting read. He seems like a man I would have dearly loved to invite around for a barbeque and a few quiet ports on a Sunday afternoon. T.A. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
The best of Fred Hutchison Intelligent design vs. gay marriage Never met him in person. However, I dearly miss him. Taken from us too soon. I recommend the book. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
The best of Fred Hutchison Intelligent design vs. gay marriage Well thought out and logically presented? Seems we were reading different articles, take, for instance, the following (from the linked article): The liberals might argue that the first principles of their opponents are grounded in faith and therefore are not admissible in public debate on the grounds of the separation of church and state. The answer to this idea is elementary: Note how the original objection to first principles grounded in faith becomes a rejection of all first principles? Or how faith in first principles starts out as not a confession of faith, though the rejection of first principles is equated to driving God out of the public square? In other parts of the article cognitive dissonance appears to be on display, how else could we have free will and not be programmed automatons while at the same time have a true destiny and an innate nature? I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
+1 bobby I find the Rene Descartes mystical flashes very interesting, almost like hearing voices. He had to come up with something, otherwise his logic left him at: I think, therefore there is thinking. He couldn't get to I am without invoking that which he just disproved. I also find his quotes about human heart telling that there is no logic here The advocates for traditional marriage have the advantage in the debate over first principles. It is easy to persuade a man that he has an innate nature because the idea is simple and clear and is naturally agreeable to the instincts of the human heart. In contrast, telling a man that he is a construct of myriad external factors reduces him to a programmed automaton, an idea that diminishes man and is repellant to the human heart. the entire piece exists on emotion and nothing else. |
Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0 |
No marriage equality law ever proposed in the United States would, nor ever will, force unwilling churches to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, contrary to dishonest Catholic and Mormon propaganda, for example, about California's Proposition 8 in 2008. And if you object to same sex couples for religious reasons, then I'm sure you belong to a church that won't be performing them. State recognition of contracts between or among consenting adults is entirely a secular matter. You have no grounds to object, much less any legal standing. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
To redefine marriage after more then 230 years of prescendance is wrong on the surface. To redefine the word itself is more then wrong after more then 6,000 years of prescendance. A marriage is between one man and one woman. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
California's Proposition 8 was voted on by the people and "We the People" make law, not Judges by decree. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
No marriage equality law ever proposed in the United States would, nor ever will, force unwilling churches to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, contrary to dishonest Catholic and Mormon propaganda, for example, about California's Proposition 8 in 2008. And if you object to same sex couples for religious reasons, then I'm sure you belong to a church that won't be performing them. State recognition of contracts between or among consenting adults is entirely a secular matter. You have no grounds to object, much less any legal standing. Quite true. If they want some mumbling by an appointed enlightened one, they can have that. If they want to be able to check the married box on the tax return and have anyone recognize it to be a marriage, they better head to the government and get the license. Maybe it is time to change the law so priests can't be officiants at weddings. After all the church and state should be separate. |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
The best of Fred Hutchison Intelligent design vs. gay marriage It's a very nicely written , but fundamentally flawed straw man argument. Reality Internet Personality |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
and trust me..work places are actually LESS sympathetic to women who take time off for kids. Surprising I know, but sadly true. ========================================================== First if you dosed up your kid and sent him to school that was highly irresponsible, second if your boss would not let you have time off for a truly sick child you should have taken him to work. If your boss objects point out that it was his decision that necessitated bringing the child to work. If the boss still take's exception remind him that a judge might find a work ethic that requires a sick possibly vary sick child to be sent to school a little odd. If the boss is still a problem get another job for god sake the kid comes first. better two crappy jobs that let you be with your child than 1 good one that does not. |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Letting my children go without because I lost my job would be more irresponsible. Of course I could have gone on welfare, but we all know how much people look down on that. second if your boss would not let you have time off for a truly Not every workplace is suitable for a child to be in.
Have you any idea how often children get small virus and colds? No, they shouldn't really be at school, but when you have more than one kid, you simply can't take all the time off work they need. If the boss is still a problem get another job for god sake the kid comes first. Not if it means that I can't pay the rent...or buy what they need...and two crappy jobs means more time away and more money spent on childcare. Have you any idea how much childcare costs? Reality Internet Personality |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
And just so you do not think me heartless, I think any company that can should provide day care and flex time. Study's show repeatedly that this makes for better happier workers and saves money lost to unplanned days off and overtime. Any business that is as inflexible as the one you describe should not be able to find good employees. If you want to fix this vote with your feet and get a better job. I think from reading your posts below that you are talented enough to make a better way for your self that includes time for your children, It can't hurt to look around for one. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.