AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > April > 12 > Entry
Should no-fault divorce be curtailed?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
No-fault divorce is grossly misnamed. It’s actually permission to unilaterally break a two-person contract, and suffer no legal consequences. It’s now easier for a straying spouse to get out of a lifetime marriage contract, than one for yearly lawn care. “I know we both signed the papers, honey, but I just don’t feel like being married anymore. And there’s nothing you can do about it.”
No-one is suggesting a return to a contentious process forcing divorce to be the “fault” of one party. However, many divorce-reform groups are suggesting that since the marriage contract is society’s foundation, we need to do much better at enforcing it and preventing easy abandonment, especially when children are involved. (For example, by requiring spouses with minor children to go through divorce education and parenting mediation before being let out of their marriage.) As I’ve noted before, studies show that as long as the marriage isn’t abusive, kids fare much better if parents stay together, even if there’s discord.
Divorce reform should never make it harder for an abused spouse to leave. But all reform proposals make abuse exceptions — and those marriages are a small percentage of the total anyway. In fact, not only do most divorces not involve abuse, most are unilateral decisions by a partner in a marriage that doesn’t even involve a high level of conflict. According to two different books (Divided Families and A Generation at Risk, respectively), four out of five divorces were unilateral — by only one partner alone— and 70% of divorces end “low-conflict” marriages.
No-fault proponents originally said it would protect marriages and families. They’ve been proven tragically wrong. The 2003 Statistical Abstract of the United States shows divorces skyrocketing 70% between 1965 (right before no-fault started), and 2000. As Focus on the Family senior analyst Glenn T. Stanton said in an interview, “Because of no-fault divorce, too many people have come home to find their marriage over and they never knew there was a serious issue. Divorce law should make the process more reflective and cooperative. And if you can force spouses to cooperate, they might be more inclined to save the marriage.”
Rebuttal
Impressive numbers. Too bad this isn’t a debate about divorce statistics.
I’m surprised there’s so much conservative favor for government intervention. But, it seems, some conservatives are suffering the same flu-like symptoms we saw in the recent Intelligent Design debate when they spun Creationism into a pseudo-science complete with its own set of pseudo-scientists. The logic goes something like this: if you can’t win the argument, tweak your premise or change your strategy. Where else could religious conservatives possibly turn? Religion does little to staunch the divorce blood bath. That’s because traditional religion is the disease, not the hope for a cure.
Religious conservatives gripe about the disappearance of recognizable gender roles and share a pig-headed resistance to gay marriage. This is because Christianity rests on the beatification of the heterosexual couple and the traditional family, that core unit of economic stability based on gender roles so important to our society back in the day when we were an agrarian culture.
But we’re not on the farm anymore. And our views about family are breaking apart as fast as our conventional religious beliefs.
Rising divorce rates are the result of a more permissive culture and legislative restrictions will do little to deter this trend over time. This issue is much deeper than transitory divorce statistics. It’s about what we really hold sacred. It isn’t marriage we doubt, it’s our traditional religious beliefs. And this, my friends, is something you cannot legislate. It’s called faith.
The real question here is whether or not laws can short-circuit social change. Rising divorce rates are symptomatic of changing social roles, broader expectations and the inevitable result of disappointment experienced by both sexes. They’re clear evidence American marriages are falling apart — not because marriage is a bad idea — but because its traditions are no longer deeply rooted. What defines a woman, a man or a family is determined by our shifting values, not by gender roles set-in-stone “Before Christ.” How we define marriage is as fluid and liberating as our imagination, not our legislation. Laws can help us adapt to change, but trying to go backwards and curtail no-fault divorce is like trying to hold back the tide.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Vermin8
April 17, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this
Of course no fault divorce should be curtailed. After all, a quick end to a bad marriage might not extend the pain and tension enough for the children to truly experience what Hades a bad marriage can do. We can’t have that can we? Trying to save a bad marriage is like beating one’s head against the wall - let’s take our children’s heads and beat them for them and show ‘em how much we love them. BTW, Shaunti, sarcasm aside, I was once a child in a non-abusive but unhappy marriage. It was…well, Hades. Divorce set us all free, especially me. And this was bad how…?
By GOB
April 17, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this
What time is the over/under for the time of Justin’s first post today??
By Troooof
April 17, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this
Prevent divorce! Don’t get married! DUH!
By Randy
April 17, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this
Did anybody not go to church yesterday??? We went from 2 to 5 services(2,500 seats) and all but one service(7:30 am) was standing room only. Pride and being self-centered stand in the way of most happy marriages. Also, maybe the statement “the family that prays together, stays together”. Talk about it, work it out.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this
Randy. Is it standing room only for services other than on Easter or Christmas?
By Randy
April 17, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this
Yea this is a great church and packs them in every sunday. I’m just amazed at the super interest and massive numbers of people who are going to church every week. You read some of the posts from this site and wonder are there alot of people who feel the way some of these people talk and you go to church and see the massive amount of people and realize the people on this site are major in the minority.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this
Randy, Honest question: Does that man that three-fifths of the members DON’T go to church on a typical Sunday?
By Renee
April 17, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this
What a silly, silly topic.
Why do people always feel the need for the government to have direct involvement in our personal lives.
For example, by requiring spouses with minor children to go through divorce education and parenting mediation before being let out of their marriage.)
Is she for real? (I’m sure she is). As a matter of fact, Shaunti’s whole argument is so off base. Words Shaunti uses to get her point across: enforcing, protect, requiring, force to cooperate. All of these things regarding a situation, which two grown people should be able to make their own decision, whether right or wrong.
How can one person assertain, if a couple is at an acceptable level of conflict for them to divorce. Doesn’t the couple experiencing it know better than anyone. So if we curtail no fault divorces, we will have a higher percentage of happy children??
By Renee
April 17, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
Why does one go to 5 services in one day? Just curious?
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
Thank You DIANE, Thank You! We are no longer an agrarian society, requiring 40 kids produced per couple, since 30 will die by the time they reach 5, and the 10 left will be required to work the farm, to survive the winter. Our food comes from mult-nationals, and can even be shipped in from Outer Mongolia. Okay, trucked up from Mexico and/or flown up from Chile for fresh produce in the winter.
No-fault divorce is an issue? Another write your legislators en masse? Who knew…… LOL (Gotta be all_american and blame SOMEONE)?
I have to say if your spouse asks for a divorce, out of the blue and blindsides you with the request, may I suggest your relationship not as peachy as you thought? LOL
I have had two, both no-fault, amicable, and worked out the specifics of the divorce with ample notice. Whoopee.
Randy - of course many people were in church yesterday. I personally know many who attend church ONCE A YEAR, and guess what day that might be? HINT: It’s the closest Sunday to this Monday. As it was, I attended a funeral Saturday, got 20 minutes of the Blood/Love Southern Baptist thing, took care of me for a year or two. On super-hard pews even, my behind is till sore. LOL
By Randy
April 17, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
Chuck, No most members go to church every week, this is just a newer church(8 years old) and the members are so excited about the church that they invite friends and family. I would say 50% of the people who went to one of the 5 services were invited. Great pastor and one who stays true to the word of GOD.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this
Children are the reasons why Shaunti is right. I agree with you to a degree Renee when there are no children involved. If adults want to screw up their own lives by getting a divorce that is one thing (My personal stance is that divorce should not be an option. Any couple that goes into marriage thinking that way will usually end up divorced), but when they screw up KIDS’ LIVES, that becomes a SOCIETAL ISSUE and of course government has a role. Who ends up having to take care of them when fathers or mothers abandon them and provide no support?
I can tell you from 16 years of classroom experience, there are very few kids who come through divorce unscathed. While most “cope”, they rarely do as well as their 2-parent peers. We have more discipline problems and they don’t generally do as well on standardized tests. It’s no fun for a kid to have to go through.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
I just wondered. We had a fairly normal crowd(maybe 5% more than usual). The church is usually pretty full anyway. We did have more visitors than usual.
By Randy
April 17, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this
Renee, Why does someone go to 5 services, I saw the attendance at the services because I went to the 1 service at 5 on saturday and helped work the others. These services were attended by different people for each service except people like me helping out. It’s true that more people go to services on Easter, but my personal belief is that “most people want to go to church and will do so if not alienated”. Some churches don’t know better but will bring attention to a guest and guests want to blend in and be one of the group. Keeps some from coming back, my church doesn’t do that and it is absolutely booming. We dress casual(clean and neat) but no shirt and tie, this is good also. Churches shouldn’t put a bunch of unnecessary requirements on people either, let them come in at their own pace and feel at ease.
By GOB
April 17, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this
Randy - What is your take on the “persecution of christianity” that many claim is going on, now that you recognize that christians are a huge majority in this country? Do you believe that it actually is going on?
By The Researcher
April 17, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
Mornin, all:
Renee, he didn’t mean he went to five services. He’s saying that his church went from having 2 services to having 5 services… at least I think that’s what he means.
But I can think of quite a few reasons to go to 5 services in one day… been there, done that, DESIGNED the t-shirt! LOL!
I agree, this is a silly, silly topic!
By Vermin8
April 17, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
Chuck, it’s not divorce that scathes the children - it’s the marriage.
By Randy
April 17, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
Chuck, there is a great book written by Rick Warren “The purpose driven Church”. I would highly recommend it for your pastor, if he wants to increase attendance.
By Monica
April 17, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
Didn’t we just talk about divorce a couple of weeks ago? I like some of the “proposals” mentioned then: a waiting period for marriage. If we take religion out of the picture completely, as Diane suggests we should, then why should those who don’t subscribe to any religion ever get married anyway? Oh yeah, social security, family coverage on insurance, etc. I wonder what’s cheaper: the fringe benefits of insurance, or paying alimony and attorney fees!
By The Researcher
April 17, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
I’m crossing my fingers and hoping that that’s not really “chuck” but another imposter…. that way, I won’t have to admit that I agree with him once again.
Renee, if you recall, I pretty much said the exact same thing to you. I know that when it comes down to it, you may agree, you just don’t feel that government should have any say so in the matter. I can sort of agree with you on that note. But, you just can’t deny that kids are too often the victims of their parents’ messy divorces, and those kids become messy adults!
I know we’ll now hear from all the adults whose parents divorced and they’ve never been happier in their lives… had such a wonderful childhood, are ridiculously successful, etc… I call that the exception to the rule.
By GOB
April 17, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
Chuck - To your argument about divorce, sure, in an ideal world, all parents would be happy and provide good homes and set good examples for their children.
Unfortunatly, that isnt the world we live in, and in reality, it never has been. Making it harder to get a divorce might help some kids (say 30% to be overly generous) by helping the parents to reconcile. Even then, however, 70% of the kids are forced to deal with parents fighting (or worse) for even longer than is needed. That isnt going to help them at all, and will more likely be worse for them than the actual divorce. It is essentially taking the lesser of 2 evils.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
Good post Chilao.
Divorce does not immediately produce “scathed” children. We have scathed children, whose parents are together and unscathed children who have been through a divorce. I mean, who actually thinks that the government forcing a family to stay together is going to make the children happier. What you will have is one or two resentful parents who will make each others life pure hell (a possible scenario).
My parents divorcing was the best thing that could have happened. I fully supported it, and actually wished for it to happen a long time before it did. My feeling are not a minority either. Coming up, I saw many, actually most, of my friends parents going through a divorce. They didn’t become these ill adjusted members of society. Sure, they probably went through emotions etc, but here’s a thought, that’s life. How can we spend all this time trying to maintain this false utopia for children, when they will hit the real world and have a rude awakening.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this
Researcher - I’m not an exception to the rule, trust me. Personally, if a divorce was mentioned in my house, I would do everything I can do to try to make it work. I took vows, I have a family established, and I love my partner deeply. But, you are right, I take exception to the government making that decision.
Will some people get divorces without thinking of the repercussions. Certainly, these same people probably got married without thinking of the repercussions. If they have children, will they be damaged. There is a chance, but there is a chance with anything. I don’t buy the argument that divorce is filling the jails and psychiatric hospitals with the harmed off-spring.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
I agree with you Chuck. If you’re planning on getting married, divorce should not be a consideration. Nor should a pre-nup. In cases of spousal abuse, no waiting period, abuser should be flogged.
By GOB
April 17, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
The bottom line as far as divorce is concerned is that as long as women have options, divorce will continue to remain higher than in the past. Also, when I say options, I dont mean it in a looking for a new guy kind of way.
In the past, women didnt have the option of leaving because most were not allowed to get an education. If they left the marriage, they would not be able to provide a life for themselves (and that is all aside from the social stigma that used to be attached). Now that women have the option of getting an education, and in turn a job that allows them to support themselves, they wont be forced to stay in bad marriages. Is any of that really a bad thing?
By Randy
April 17, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
Good question GOB, are Christians being persecuted?? Yes, they are, however it is by a small minority of people( probably less than 5%) who have a different belief system. These are arrogant people who haven’t experienced Jesus’ love and actually believe they are right. When in reality they haven’t thought it through. Some of these people have gained position as they know that they are in the minority and fear the the power of Christ will get so strong as to make them give up their sinful lifestyles and accept him as their lord and savior. They like their lifestyle now and don’t want to change although they would be happier if they were to become a Christian. We as Christians will always be persecuted on some level as some people want to be selfish and self-centered and not really be happy. They don’t know, that they don’t know.
By PHILOSOPHER
April 17, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
By my calculations it’s time for Just Being Me to appear seeing as how she is the “Researcher”.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
“Divorce does not immediately produce “scathed” children”
Can’t agree with that. Not an expert on it but find one child with divorced parents that came through totally unscathed. Just one.
By Archie
April 17, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this
No-fault divorce should not be curtailed. I mean we don’t force people to get together in this country so why should we force them to stay together? I definitely believe that couples should work hard to stay together mainly,because of the work and time spent on relationships. I am thinking of myself personally and of course when abuse is involved the abused party needs to get away as soon as possible. Diane is right that you can’t legislate faith.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
Renee, I thought the liberals among us were trying to create UTOPIA. Perfect environment, government check for everyone, nobody goes hungry or homeless…
Share The Land The Guess Who Written by Burton Cummings
——— Lead Guitar ———
Have you been around Have you done your share o’ comin’ down On different things that people do Have you been aware You got brothers and sisters who care About what’s gonna happen to you in a year from now
Maybe I’ll be there to shake your hand Maybe I’ll be there to share the land That they’ll be givin’ away When we all live together I’m talkin’ ‘bout together now
Maybe I’ll be there to shake your hand Maybe I’ll be there to share the land That they’ll be givin’ away When we all live together I’m talkin’ ‘bout together now
——— Lead Guitar ———
Did you pay your dues Did you read the news This mornin’ when the paper landed in your yard Do you know their names Can you play their games Without losin’ track and comin’ down a bit too hard Oh!
Maybe I’ll be there to shake your hand Maybe I’ll be there to share the land That they’ll be givin’ away When we all live together I’m talkin’ ‘bout together now
Maybe I’ll be there to shake your hand Maybe I’ll be there to share the land That they’ll be givin’ away When we all live together I’m talkin’ ‘bout together now
——— Lead Guitar Solo ———
Mmm, maybe I’ll be there to shake your hand Maybe I’ll be there to share the land That they’ll be givin’ away When we all live together I’m talkin’ ‘bout together now
Maybe I’ll be there to shake your hand Maybe I’ll be there to share the land That they’ll be givin’ away When we all live together Together, together
(Shake your hand, share the land) You know I’ll be standin’ by to help you if you’re worried (Shake your hand, share the land) No more sadness, no more sorrow, and no more bad times (Shake your hand, share the land) Every day comin’ sunshine, every day everybody laughin’ (Shake your hand, share the land) Walkin’ together by the river, walkin’ together and laughin’ (Shake your hand, share the land) Everybody singin’ together, everybody singin’ and laughin’ (Shake your hand, share the land) Good times, good times, everybody walkin’ by the river now (Shake your hand, share the land) Walkin’, singin’, talkin’, smilin’, laughin’, diggin’ each other (Shake your hand, share the land) Everybody happy together, I’ll be there, don’t worry, if you’re needin’ me (Shake your hand, share the land) Call on me, call on me, call my name, I’ll be runnin’ to help you (Shake your hand, share the land) Everybody walkin’ by the river now, everybody, everybody laughin’ (Shake your hand, share the land) Everybody singin’ and talkin’, smilin’, laughin’, diggin’ each other (Shake your hand, share the land) {fade}
Lyrics > T > The Guess Who Lyrics > Shakin All Over Song Lyrics
WHY NOT THIS SAME PASSION FOR CHILDREN? Seems to me liberals are all about “MY RIGHTS” and what I want. Sounds kind of selfish to me. I guess if you see children as disposable BEFORE birth, then why take responsibility for their happiness AFTER birth?
By PHILOSOPHER
April 17, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
GOB: Were you speaking of persecution around the world or only in the USA? There are many different countries were being a Christian is a death sentence.
In the USA and with the ACLU in full force they are trying to slowly take away all public references to Christ. Look at the school systems and the changes to Christmas. Voluntary prayer groups in school must fight for their rights where on the flip side gay groups are not a problem.
Slowly but surely the ACLU and their ilk are trying to do away with all references to Christianity. (Islam however is not a problem and we must show how tolerant they are so as to not offend any of the Muslims. It’s ok to offend Christians however.)
By GOB
April 17, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Good question GOB, are Christians being persecuted?? Yes, they are, however it is by a small minority of people( probably less than 5%) who have a different belief system.
But if those 5% are not in power, which they most certianly are not, how can the persecute the majority population.
These are arrogant people who haven’t experienced Jesus’ love and actually believe they are right. When in reality they haven’t thought it through.
Isnt this statement pretty arrogant too though? Replace “Jesus’ love” with “reason and logic” and you would call that an arrogant statement right?
By chuck
April 17, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Maybe people ought to have to PURCHASE as part of their marriage license a $250,000 BOND to take care of the children in the event of divorce.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Jack I can attest to myself. The divorce was totally unscathing, my parents marriage on the other hand, left me rather scathed. But not so scathed I couldn’t get over it and move past it.
Researcher is not JBM.
By GOB
April 17, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Chuck - How is it that legally forcing two people to stay together (on paper only) who have already decided that they have no desire to continue to be together will benefit child? Yes, a few couples might reconcile, but the vast majority will not. How are those extra months going to do anything benificial for the child?
By Randy
April 17, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
My position on divorce is simple, my mother and father gave me a very happy childhood, they were great parents and my children deserve the same happy childhood. I know some people need to get divorced, but I agree with Chuck, if you have any doubts about marrying someone to the point that you ask for a prenup,saveyourself the headache and don’t get married to that person. If money and materials mean more to you than that person’s love, maybe you don’t love them enough to get married.
By Vermin8
April 17, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
“Can’t agree with that. Not an expert on it but find one child with divorced parents that came through totally unscathed. Just one.” How about me after my parent’s FIRST divorce? They remarried within a couple years - and divorced again - so it’s hard to tell what my long term effects would have been had they not reconciled - but I’m telling you, while there was some discombobulation due to change in the household, it was not very deep. I was 11…I remember feeling guilty because I wasn’t experiencing the suffering kids of divorce are supposed to suffer according to the “experts.” Come to think of it that was the worst thing about the divorce - the stigma of knowing I was a “damaged” child (even though I didn’t feel like it, didn’t act out, didn’t have my grades drop).
By Renee
April 17, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
Additionally, my brother, totally unscathed. He was happy, well adjusted, graduating from an Ivy League university this year. Graduated from high school as the valedictorian. Still a virgin, lol. And he was a tad younger than I, when they got divorced. He maintained straight A’s throughout his entire school history (he’s a tad smarter than me lol), but he was a totally unscathed child.
By Vermin8
April 17, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
“Jack I can attest to myself. The divorce was totally unscathing, my parents marriage on the other hand, left me rather scathed. But not so scathed I couldn’t get over it and move past it.” Yes, please all of you “for the children” preachers - please ACKNOWLEDGE this! Bad marriage is harmful and any case where the divorce itself was scathing, I guarantee you the marriage was 10x as bad.
By Randy
April 17, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Gob, The 5% are in power, they are just in power in a different way. They own newspapers(check and see how many homosexuals work at the AJC for instance)they run TV stations, they work at the ACLU or throw them money to fight every reference to Christ in the public. Good point by Philosopher, China is so afraid of the power of Jesus(giving people hope) that you can’t send any printed material to people in China. The government is afraid the people will see the truth and eventually take over the government. Many other are countries like this also.
By GOB
April 17, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Philosopher - I am only talking about the US. Do you have anything other than Bill O’Reilly to back up your claims about all things christian being forced into hiding?
By Renee
April 17, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
I meant to say “he was more than a tad younger than I”.
By candide
April 17, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
Divorce should be allowed only for people who reject publicly Christianity. Christians should be held to their crazy beliefs. They love to parade their piety and still do what they want. In the bible belt divorce is more common than elsewhere. I also think Christian adulterers, liars, thieves, etc. should be punished more severely than non-believers. I’d really like to stick it to the Christers.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Randy - how many homosexuals are there working at the AJC and how did you gain your figures?
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
Thanks, Renee. I also have known many people over the years, from divorced homes, seem very well-adjusted. I am not the product of divorce, so cannot comment directly.
speaking of the ACLU, a cartoon I scanned from Playboy a few years ago. (being an ACLU member, I can post this). LOL, but the anti-ACLU crowd should love it.
http://www.pixpond.com/1/ae9iv.jpg
By Randy
April 17, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
GOB, I just read the “reason and logic” part. See thats the problem not believing in God,is not reasonable and logically. That’s what they tell themselves that they are being logical and reasonable, when the opposite is true. If someone tells me that they don’t believe in God, I say, OH you believe in majic. You believe that no matter how far back you go to the beginning of the universe(billions of years whatever) that the universe just came together of its own power(just majically appeared)without the help of a creator. Things don’t just appear out of thin air without help. Every one I have had this discussion with(other than some of the nuts on this site) have accepted what I said as logic and reason and changed their mind.
By PHILOSOPHER
April 17, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
Ok, so it must be Renee as the “researcher”. Sorry.
GOB: Who the heck is Bill ORilley?
candida: This blog is for grown ups. So run along now and play with your tiddly winks.
Randy: Great posts!
By chuck
April 17, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
It’s called a cooling off period Gob. It seems to me that most so-called adults are just bratty little children who have to have everything their own way. That gets in the way of COMMITMENT.
Why Marriages Fail
Not all marriages fail for the same reason. Nor is there usually one reason for the breakdown of a particular marriage. Nevertheless, we hear some reasons more often than others.
They are:
Poor communication Financial problems A lack of commitment to the marriage A dramatic change in priorities Infidelity
There are other causes we see a lot, but not quite as often as those listed above .They are:
Failed expectations or unmet needs Addictions and substance abuse Physical, sexual or emotional abuse Lack of conflict resolution skills http://www.aaml.org/Marriage_Last/MarriageLastText.htm
Look at the most common reasons for divorce Gob. Those are reasons used by selfish people.
What kind of mature ADULT would put a child through a divorce because of POOR COMMUNICATION?!?!? I can understand it if there is adultery or abuse. Certainly nobody could be expected to remain in a marriage where they are not SAFE. Those other reasons are absolutely ridiculous. An adult who can’t solve problems like those, just isn’t trying. Maybe they SHOULD.
By GOB
April 17, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Randy - I think that the 5% in high media positions and with ACLU is more than cancelled out by the fact that the religious right has pretty much taken over the house, sentate, white house, and to a lesser degree the supreme court. Writing an editorial or running a tv station is NOT power when taken in context.
By kimberly
April 17, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
Randy, you are full of “it” once again. Take a look at Rupert Murdoch and Reverend Sun Myung Moon, neither of whom were born in America but both of whom control massive amounts of American media and both of whom contribute staggering amounts of cash to the Republican party and other right-wing organizations. Beyond that, conglomerates are buying out smaller media every year, effectively reducing the number of independent media to which we have access, and bringing more and more of it under corporate control — by corporations who benefit from current right-wing policies, and the tax cuts they enjoy as a result of the populace’s blind following of this right-wing theocratic braying. The myth of the “liberal media” is PR tripe instigated by well-paid spin artists to capture the attention of those who don’t readily pay attention. Clearly, you are among them.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
Ummmm….no philosopher, I am posting under Renee, in case you didn’t notice.
Please don’t start with me.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
Vermin8, I’ve read many of your posts…trust me, you are “scathed”. And Renee, I really don’t mean to offend you, but don’t you think your experience may have contributed to your lifestyle choice? Just asking?
By Justin
April 17, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
GOB, of course I have to provide my input…
Has anyone read this article?
/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032500029.html
Laws must protect the rights of Military Dads www.glennsacks.com/federalactionneeded.htm
Many Divorced Dads Struggle to Remain in Their Children’s Lives www.glennsacks.com/manydivorcedfathers.htm
By GOB
April 17, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Randy - You are missing my point. I was using the “logic and reason” statement to illustrate how your statement about people being arrogant because they dont believe what you do.
Your other argument about creation does have a flaw. If everything had to begin somewhere (or be created), then didnt god have to begin somewhere? To say he didnt simply because he is god is a total cop-out.
By Billy
April 17, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Chuck, I’m calling you out on your BS.
“Seems to me liberals…see children as disposable BEFORE birth, then why take responsibility for their happiness AFTER birth?”
Oh, how incredibly off-base you are…
It’s the neo-cons who insist that all potential babies be born, but then care nothing about caring for them. Who cuts things like Head Start and other programs that help disadvantaged children? Conservatives. Who would rather spend $100 Billion on a missile defense system that will never work than $100 million on ensuring that poverty-level kids are able to get well-balanced meals at school? Conservatives. Who blindly supports an illegal war that has resulted in almost 2400 US soldiers’ deaths, in addition to the 18,000 wounded US servicemen and women, not to mention the 35,000 Iraqi civilians killed? Conservatives. Who is against stem-cell research that could help countless people on the grounds that the blastocysts destroyed in the process might one day be babies, even though they’re in the deep freeze because they aren’t wanted? Conservatives. Who wants to prevent readily available contraception for as many people as possible so that more babies are born, even if they are born to those who do not want them? Conservatives. Who doesn’t care what big corporations do to our environment, even if their pollution causes diseases to skyrocket? Conservatives.
You can make the argument that liberals do not care about babies before they are born. It’s not true, but, OK, whatever. But to say that liberals do not care about children after birth just prove that you don’t get too good a view of your world with your head firmly implanted in your arse.
Jack —You are right, children of divorce do not come out unscathed. But neither do children of happily married couples. Every kids feels unhappy at some point. I know you religious people must have read the book “Wild At Heart”. Its author (correctly, I believe) posits that all boys are in some way “wounded” by their fathers. I think it’s the same way for all kids. No parent is perfect, and every child in middle school feels like an outcast.
The point is that forcing a child to stay in an unhappy marriage is no better for the child than granting a quick divorce. And since it’s no better, the children do not serve as an excuse for the government to rule people’s private lives. Conservatives just want to impose their religion on everyone. As usual.
By Randy
April 17, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
GOB, It’s well documented that Christians are persecuted in some other countries, 167 thousand lost their lives in 2005 because they wouldn’t renounce their faith.
Renee, I don’t know an exact count of how many homosexuals work at the AJC. However, one of writers at the AJC gave a speech about 2 years ago and he said “When I walk thru the AJC building, I might as well have a sign on my back saying I’m straight, because i’m one of the few”.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
Yeah. I’m sure he was totally unscathed at all.
By RF
April 17, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
We’ve ground this axe until it’s a nub. And yet, somehow we’ll find fodder for debate alllll week.
Divorce isn’t the reason children are screwed up, bad parenting is. When you devote yourself to your children, they stand as good a chance as any whether there is one parent or two, married or divorced. I’ve taught 17 years, and I’ve had good kids and bad from all sorts of environments. Why do we feel this compulsion to keep shoving the Ward and June family model on people? That isn’t what makes kids happy—that’s what TV presents us with as the ideal. Time to get over that and realize kids turn out good or bad as the result of careful, loving attention from a parent or parents who are happy with themselves and their lives, marital status notwithstanding. Also, kids have to choose at some point what to make of life. The good foundation we give them will guide their decisions, but ultimately they have to decide to either be what we’ve raised them to be or be something else. Married parents don’t always produce good kids. My sister is a prime example. Perfect childhood, but chose to follow her “friends” and ended up a drug addict. Three other kids turned out fine, but one made some bad choices in spite of the good, wholesome upbringing she had.
By Justin
April 17, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Turning the Corner on Father Absence in Black America
www.americanvalues.org/html/r-turningthecorner.html
Black Men And Divorce: Implications For Culturally Competent Practice
Minority Health Today, July, 2000 by Erma Jean Lawson, Tanya L. Sharpe
Divorce takes a particularly heavy toll on black men, resulting in mental health problems that commonly present as physiological symptoms
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mim0HKU/is51/ai66918338
The shocking state of Black marriage: experts say many will never get married
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mim1077/is159/ai110361377
By Renee
April 17, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
Chuck - no offense taken. I didn’t make a choice, so no, divorce had no contribution. However, I don’t see how if I made a choice, it would be contributed to my parents divorcing.
And using that logic Chuck, everyone who lives the lifestyle that I am living, would be from divorced parents. Which is not true.
How do you get “scathed” from Vermin8’s posts.
By RF
April 17, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Gob, The 5% are in power, they are just in power in a different way. They own newspapers(check and see how many homosexuals work at the AJC for instance)
Geez, it’s not even lunchtime on Monday, and already it’s the homos’ fault!! How did we get dragged into a debate about no-fault divorce?? Once again, the conservative view that homosexuality is THE sin!
By lozen
April 17, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
The more I read of Shauti’s thoughts (?) the more I see 1940 and 1950 and then 1900 and 1875 for women in this country. Let’s turn back the clock and get back to family values. Like back alley abortions and women bleeding to death or dying from infection. Of course if you have money you’ll be able to just fly off to whereever and have a doctor do it just like it was before. No way out of a bad marriage - once you’re in it honey, you are in it and you shouldn’t be allowed to get out unless you can prove to some govm’t official or judge that you really are abused (and it’ll just be your word against his!) No access to birth control for anybody. Just say no until you marry this person you will never be able to get away from for as long as you live! I suppose the next step in their conservative agenda will be to deny all women, married or single, any information about birth control. Back to the family values of poor women dying after having one child after another. Life was so much better under the Comstock Act which made it a crime for married women to have birth control information! Women forced to get married to have sex. Women forced to stay in marriages they don’t want to be in. Women forced to have kids whether they want to or not! Oh yeah, they gotta do something about higher education too. No more college for women! I bet if you stop over educating them girls they’ll settle down and stop wantin’ to be free!
By GOB
April 17, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
GOB, It’s well documented that Christians are persecuted in some other countries, 167 thousand lost their lives in 2005 because they wouldn’t renounce their faith.
The reason I asked about the US only is because this is pretty common knowledge. No need to debate it.
By GOB
April 17, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Who had 10:20??
By RF
April 17, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Seems to me liberals…see children as disposable BEFORE birth, then why take responsibility for their happiness AFTER birth?
I must be more conservative than I thought. I happen to be completely, totally devoted to my children and would gladly lay down my life for them. They are the center of my life and come before any of my personal needs or wishes. And all this time I thought I was one of those pesky liberals!!
By Randy
April 17, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
GOB, I think you don’t understand the power of the press. A few years back the government want to break up Genreal Motors, GM didn’t want to be broken up, they did one simple thing, they stopped advertising for a small period of time. Thank god for most of the politians being conservative, but they are put into office by the people and the people must see thru the agenda of the liberal media.
Kimberly, I sure you have some points in your post however, what about George Soros, who throws billions to the ACLU? As far a the media being liberal, of this I’m sure, why? Because I’m a conservative and I don’t agree with hardly anything they say. FOX news is an exception.
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
Once again, the conservative view that homosexuality is THE sin!
right now, until there aren’t any more(that Christian counseling thing awhile back). than there will have to be found a NEW THE SIN. Gotta have something to rally the troops around.
Wait, Divorce is waiting-in-the-wings..to name one..LOL
By BDJ
April 17, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
Just a quick comment on this issue. I have a son (well, I suppose technically a Stepson, but he’s my boy all the way as far as either of us are concerned) whose mother got a divorce when he was just a little guy. Our family has been together just a shade under 12 years now. When she got that divorce, she just knew it wasn’t a good marriage and my boy was only about 3 years old. I’m grateful that the there was a no-fault divorce so she could follow her instincts. We found out about 3 years ago that her ex-husband is a pedophile and is now in prison. She didn’t know he was abusing the boy, but he probably was (pedophiles are notoriously good at hiding their brand of evil) she just knew something was off. My son is safe and happy now and so is she.
By Hadden Knough
April 17, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
I read rarely this column anymore, but when I do I see that Diane’s thinking is still the best example around for why we doubt our traditional religious beliefs, for why our traditions are no longer deeply rooted, why there are shifting values, why our views about family are breaking apart as fast as our conventional religious beliefs, and the disappointment experienced by both sexes is the inevitable result . All those things she mentions above that most of us see as problems, Diana sees as progress.
“How we define marriage is as fluid and liberating as our imagination…”, she says. So, why not just carry this Sesame Street level philosophy to its logical conclusion and just “imagine” marriage away completely? Don’t stop there though. Let’s imagine no barriers to any behavior. Imagine we are all liberated to do, act, say what we please. Then imagine the result. Just don’t imagine for a second that this is not where thinking like Diane’s will ultimately lead.
By Justin
April 17, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
Chuck, You would be amazed at how many women leave a marriage because the man doesn’t communicate the same as they do in a marriage. Most women tend to want to talk about everything extensively. Most men tend to stick to the facts and say what they need to say.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
“I know you religious people” Billy that sounds like something Candide would say. I believe in a higher power but I don’t consider myself “a religious” person.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
Jack - having feelings about it and working through it would be a lot different than being “scathed”. Of course as a child you feel different things, and other things you might not understand but my point is, this does not mean you are damaged for life.
RF - do you think your parents being married contributed to your lifestyle? LOL
Justin - sweetie, ummmm….what is your stance on the subject. We know how you feel persecuted…
By Randy
April 17, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
RF, I view homosexuals as liberals(what else could they be). I don’t think there is any argument that practicing the homosexuality lifestyle is a sin. That’s pretty black and white. Again, these people have said that they want to do what they want to do(live a hedonistic lifestyle), not what God as conveyed for us to do, to have a happy life.
By Hadden Knough
April 17, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
I read rarely this column anymore, but when I do I see that Diane’s thinking is still the best example around for why we doubt our traditional religious beliefs, for why our traditions are no longer deeply rooted, why there are shifting values, why our views about family are breaking apart as fast as our conventional religious beliefs, and the disappointment experienced by both sexes is the inevitable result . All those things she mentions above that most of us see as problems, Diana sees as progress.
“How we define marriage is as fluid and liberating as our imagination…”, she says. So, why not just carry this Sesame Street level philosophy to its logical conclusion and just “imagine” marriage away completely? Don’t stop there though. Let’s imagine no barriers to any behavior. Imagine we are all liberated to do, act, say what we please. Then imagine the result. Just don’t imagine for a second that this is not where thinking like Diane’s will ultimately lead.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
let’s just forget about marriage altogether. Everyone can sleep with anyone they want. We can raise a nation of bastards. We can also have the income tax raised to 80% so that the government can provided everything for us. We should also do away with Father’s day. Who needs it or Dad?
By GOB
April 17, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
GOB, I think you don’t understand the power of the press. A few years back the government want to break up Genreal Motors, GM didn’t want to be broken up, they did one simple thing, they stopped advertising for a small period of time.
Randy, that doesnt show the power of the press as much as it shows the weakness of the government to stand up to giant corporations. I dont know much about the GM example. Was this before or after republicans took control of the government?
Also, if you were to compare the number of millionaires and billionaires throwing their money behind political organizations, the republicans win out hands down.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
It’s got to be some kind of record. It’s not even noon and already Randy and Chuck are in lunatic-fringe-rant mode. Apparently, all the world’s problems can be laid at the feet of homosexuals, liberals, the ACLU, and the worldwide Christian persecution movement.
Why is it that Conservatives claim to believe in small government except when it comes to controlling peoples lives? Then, the government should watchdog every little detail.
And let’s be serious - religious conservatives don’t care a whit about “children’s welfare”, or anyone else’s for that matter. They care about one thing - forcing everyone to conform to their idea of the perfect family. Mom. Dad. 2.5 children.
Renee, don’t even bother with Chuck. He will always believe you “chose” to be gay because if you didn’t then it’s harder for him to condemn your sin. I don’t know why you even bother being civil to the man - he views you as sub-human. There’s no need to pretend to be polite to someone who thinks you are intrinsically flawed and deserve to be treated as such.
Randy, I’m SURE you can cite your source for your claims about the global persecution of Christians? Of course you can, just like you can cite your source for claiming the AJC is run by a horde of homosexuals.
By Randy
April 17, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Good point Hadden, What liberals see as progress(murdering babies, playing GOD) we conservatives see a fixing something that ain’t broke. It’s crazy, we have and have had such a great country and some of us still aren’t happy, we want our cake and eat it to. We not only accept these great gifts of God(if you don’t believe me go to most other countries and see their lifestyle)but some of us (liberals) want to be GOD. I’m just thankful Jesus isn’t like me, I would take this prosperity away from people who don’t appreciate it.
By GOB
April 17, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
RF, I view homosexuals as liberals(what else could they be). I don’t think there is any argument that practicing the homosexuality lifestyle is a sin. That’s pretty black and white. Again, these people have said that they want to do what they want to do(live a hedonistic lifestyle), not what God as conveyed for us to do, to have a happy life.
That is remarkably narrow-minded. I know several gays that are a lot more conservative than I am. Also, it being a sin is only accurate if you happen to subscribe to your belief system, but at that point, so is eating shellfish.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
RF, I view homosexuals as liberals(what else could they be). I don’t think there is any argument that practicing the homosexuality lifestyle is a sin. That’s pretty black and white. Again, these people have said that they want to do what they want to do(live a hedonistic lifestyle), not what God as conveyed for us to do, to have a happy life
I didn’t think it was possible, but you have outdone yourself for stupidity, Randy.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
Never said damaged for life Renee’. Just damaged. We get thrown curves all through life and if we get through it, it makes us stronger.
By thegoddess
April 17, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
….. (taken from By Randy)
April 17, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
Good question GOB, are Witches being persecuted?? Yes, they are, however it is by a huge majority of people (probably less than 75%) who have a different belief system. These are arrogant people who haven’t experienced the love of the Goddess and actually believe they are right. When in reality they haven’t thought it through. Some of these people have gained position as they know that they are in “the majority” and fear the the power of The Goddess will get so strong as to make them give up their joyless lifestyles and accept Her as their lady and goddess. They like their lifestyle now and don’t want to change although they would be happier if they were to become a Witch. We as Witches will always be persecuted on some level as some people want to believe their superstitions and not really be happy. They don’t know, that they don’t know. (Look what those christers did to us in Europe in the 12, 13, 14 and 1500’s. They tortured us and burned us, drowned us and raped us and killed our familiars! They wiped out whole villages of women because those women refused to give up their old ways, their family values, and bend their knee to their god. They refused to stop healing and making magic and meeting under the full moon to dance and sing and play! Of course, the church also wanted their land!)
By Vermin8
April 17, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
OK, Chuck…tell me…how am I scathed and how do you connect it with a divorce?
By Randy
April 17, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
John72, I personally don’t have anything against homosexuals, I’m dissapointed in them for choosing that lifestyle and making our country weaker. But I realize the greatness of freedom and that I don’t want to make anybody do anything against their will. So I will try to be as gentle as I can but still show that I don’t approve of their lifestyle.
By The Researcher
April 17, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
Okay, when I’m HERE, y’all get mad at me for talking too much, when I’m NOT here, y’all call me up!
Good morning FANS!!!!!!!
By kimberly
April 17, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
Why do you people act as if TRUTH is somehow subjective? The truth, as in what ACTUALLY HAPPENED on any given day, is not something you can “agree with” or “disagree with” Randy… HELLO? The bias comes in (1) Choosing what to report or not report, and (2) Choosing whether to give one one side of the story or to include all available facts and perspectives.
Again, for those of you who are slow: The TRUTH is completely independent of your personal religious or political beliefs. Where is the TRUTH, and shouldn’t we (ALL of us) be demanding it? When you say you “agree with” this news but not that news, you are demontrating your complete ignorance to the fact that most of them are not even giving us news, but opinion, propaganda, gossip, or a carefully-orchestrated half hour of manipulative tidbits.
Um, Randy, Fox “news” may be giving you what you want, but if you think it’s TRUTH, then I have some nice beach front property in Oklahoma to sell you. You’ll like it there.
By Randy
April 17, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
Thank you “The goddess” I have always heard that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Let’s me know that what I’m saying it hitting the spot.
By lozen
April 17, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
To the self identified philosopher: Nobody else would identify you as a philosopher!
By Randy
April 17, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
Not even noon and 72John has already lowered his argument to name calling. WEAK. WEAK. Maybe we could find him a 8 to 10 year old to argue with so he doesn’t feel so inferior.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
Let’s me know that what I’m saying it hitting the spot
I think you’re missing the point, nimrod. This is supposed to make your tiny mind aware of the persecution that Christians have heaped upon others for centuries, and continue to heap upon others.
By Justin
April 17, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
The government has interfered too much in our private lives and when it comes to marriage. Those of you who are gay, do you really want to get married? I know you want the rights of partners but look at the mess we have made of marriage and divorce. At least in the case of divorce in a gay marriage, there won’t be the issue of gender bias. Unless, the judges cater to the more effeminate partner.
By Randy
April 17, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Kimberly, Wow, so you were stupid enough to buy beach property in Oklahoma. Sharp.
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Good morning, everyone!
How silly it is to talk about me when I’m not even here (both today AND Friday). Just plain silly.
And whoever IS the researcher (and/or the philosopher) is intentionally trying to frame me because the style of writing sounds an awful lot like me. The only difference is that I’m NOT a coward, and I post under my own name and my own name only. It takes away from what little integrity the blog has when small-minded people (if that’s namecalling, so be it) use fake tags, and it’s borderline SCARY when those nutjobs pretend to be someone else!!!!!
Got a lot going on today, so you guys have a good day and live right.
P.S. At the time those posts were written, I was stuck on MARTA with about 5,000 other unhappy commuters.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Actually, Randy, I just find you pitiable and repugnant. There is no point in arguing with you because you simply refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn’t gel with your poorly reasoned ideas and flawed logic. You’re an idiot of the highest degree, and not only that you are a religious fanatic and a hateful bigot.
Why should I try to be reasonable with you?
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
Real cute, Researcher, Philosopher, whoever…
By Renee
April 17, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
How did this subject get turned around to homosexuality??
By Jack
April 17, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
The sheeple cannot handle the truth. The media are taught to treat us like we are in 3rd grade. Right, left, they are all vulture scum.
By Randy
April 17, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
You shouldn’t 72John, I know you can’t argue anyone into heaven, that’s something God shows them in his good time if they will listen. You have a lifestyle you have gotten use to and you may think you are happy with it and have probably convinced yourself of that. So good luck to you, I wish you the best.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
How did this subject get turned around to homosexuality??
The religious nuts immediately started harping on it. Go figure.
By kimberly
April 17, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Randy, no I inherited it. Will sell cheap. You’ll love it there! Practically no civil rights at all in Oklahoma! Sean Hannity has a place just down the street. You two can go jogging together every morning while he tells you what you should be enraged about that day. You may never have to think again!
By Randy
April 17, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Amen Jack, about the media, they all have an agenda. Like were stupid.
By RF
April 17, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Randy- honestly, you’d be surprised how many homosexuals are actually moderates and conservatives. Politcal/social views have nothing to do with sexual orientation. Many people misunderstand and figure we’re all bleeding-heart liberals. I actually voted almost totally republican in the last few elections. Don’t automatically make the connection between sexuality and politics. There are many, many who defy the stereotypes. Many of us are law-abiding citizens who work hard, expect others to do so, hate the government give-away, love God and Country, and want our kids to be ‘raised right’. We don’t all run around overthrowing government at every turn and tearing at the fabric of American life. You’d seriously be surprised.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
I can speak for my brother and myself, the damage was done during the marriage, the divorce was a relief. Had my parents been forced to be married, its very probable that my brother would have harbored resentment that would have interfered with his current educational accomplishments.
By Randy
April 17, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
My fault Renee, on the homosexuality, I was referenceing liberals in the media. Sorry.
By RF
April 17, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
Renee- Randy broached the subject at 10:00 a.m. on the nose. And yes, I’m sure my parents’ choices, or maybe it was that I didn’t like my dad (love the man actually), or maybe I was subliminally influenced leading to my lifestyle choice. I soooo wish people could get past the idea that we’re all emotionally damaged, and that there must be some external cause that could be avoided or reversed. SHEESH!! How you doing by the way? Springtime starting up there at the pole yet??
By GOB
April 17, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
Jack - That “vulture scum” is one of the most important things that have seperates this country from China or Cuba or any other repressive countries.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
You shouldn’t 72John, I know you can’t argue anyone into heaven, that’s something God shows them in his good time if they will listen. You have a lifestyle you have gotten use to and you may think you are happy with it and have probably convinced yourself of that. So good luck to you, I wish you the best
I don’t have a “lifestyle”, you ignorant hick. I have a life. “Lifestyle” is an idiotic phrase that you conservative lunatics have created to help convince you that your discrimination is justified. It helps you compartmentalize into US -vs- THEM, and makes it easier to forget that you’re talking about human beings who do things pretty much the same way everyone else does.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
Woof,woof!
By Justin
April 17, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Greetings Renee,
Yes, I definitely feel persecuted. Going into court, with the history and the evidence of being a good father, a good attorney, and the blessing of the guardian ad litem and child psychologist, I still was moved to the status of a visitor in my children’s life. I lost a lot of things I worked for “before” I met her. But, what hurts me the most is the lack of control over how my children are raised.
By Randy
April 17, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Kimberly, well that’s different then on the land, I take it. Sounds great.
RF, glad to hear that some homosexuals are moderate and conservative. Praise the lord.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Politcal/social views have nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Very true.
By RF
April 17, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
(check and see how many homosexuals work at the AJC for instance)
That was where it started Renee.
Sorry if I misunderstood you Randy, but that seemed to be a pretty direct reference to us there, and not a positive sexuality/liberal politics connection.
By Randy
April 17, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
I like to stay and talk to you fine people, but I better go do some work.
By Julia
April 17, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Enough already. Whether you agree with homosexuality or not how can you point to it as the only sin in the world? How many here have achieved “perfection”-where you have no struggle with ANY sin whatsoever? How many people in your church have attained this “perfection”?
Why are you harping on the homosexuals about sin when you yourself struggle with sin?
I guess you think only people who are “free from sin” may come to church or find Christ. If that’s the case then your church would be empty and you yourself would still be lost.
WHy can’t you reflect the love and forgiveness of Christ so that people would be drawn to Christianity instead of running from it because of fear of condemnation??? (Just a thought.)
(Sorry, my 2 cents for the morning.)
By Renee
April 17, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
All homosexuals are NOT liberals, click here
By Randy
April 17, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
No making 72John happy today. I guess the logical question would be, 72John, who are you trying to convince you lifestyle is OK, me or you.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
RF - I’m fine. Springtime is like almost here. We have warmer weather, but nothing, absolutely nothing is blooming. Oh, well I did see some crocuses coming up. But not a lot of greenery. Oh, and great response lol.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
I agree JBM, if the researcher and the philosopher are regulars as they appear to be, they should post in their own names. NetB?
By Billy
April 17, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
*By Randy
April 17, 2006 11:23 AM
…RF, glad to hear that some homosexuals are moderate and conservative. Praise the lord.*
Randy, the very fact that you didn’t know that many homosexuals are fairly conservative just adds another page to the “Evidence of Randy’s ignorance” file…
By The72John
April 17, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
No making 72John happy today. I guess the logical question would be, 72John, who are you trying to convince you lifestyle is OK, me or you.
It’s like talking to a brick wall. A really, really, stupid, narrow-minded, ignorant brick wall.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
The difference is that in other countries the government controls what the media throws at us.
Tell me Mr.Smith, what was going through your mind when you found out your brothers were in those towers as they were falling?
Vulture Scum.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
Julia, are you the blog “Lady in waiting” with Queen JBM absent today? Haven’t you learned yet that we will talk about whatever we want to? In whatever manner we choose? No offense, but maybe you should mind your own business enabler.
By Lyrazel
April 17, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
Yawn, solution to no-fault divorce—-dont get married in the first place. Most who claim no fault do not have children so heated arguments about custody are rather a fraud in this case. Most folk who file no fault do not have large assets so no heated arguments about she-got-mine up the (blank) because there is usually nothing but debt. Most people with no-fault are just leaving a bad situation and trying to do so before someone like Shaunti decides to preach how much they should stay with their soon-to-be-ex. Lawyers are cheaper to do no-fault divorces—less than or average $500…or do your own for $110.
Shaunti wants what is good for us and always wants the government to get more involved with peoples private lives which is the antithesis of everything Americans are entrenched to desire: no government in our private lives. This: good-for-you-even-if-it-destroys-you attitude decries a spoiled woman without compassion for others in less fortunate circumstances. Why does she always want the government to solve marital troubles? Like taxpayer $$ is going to make the divorce rate go down if states make it difficult? Hell yes, fewer will get married.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble, when you’re perfect in every way.
Chuck. NetB is above that.
By GOB
April 17, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Jack - Which would you rather see on the news?
“Tell me Mr.Smith, what was going through your mind when you found out your brothers were in those towers as they were falling?”
OR
“And President Bush won re-election for his 8th term with 99% of the vote. This is the 5th consecutive time he has gotten 99%”
By chuck
April 17, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
It has to be more difficult for a homosexual to vote republican since most of us are against issues that resonate with gays. For instance, I find it repugnant that we spend more of our limited research funds on AIDS, a disease that is totally related to BEHAVIOR and nearly 100% preventable, than we do on childhood leukemia, heart disease and cancer combined. OR, most of us are against gay marriage and gay adoption.
I think therefore it is somewhat logical to assume that more gays are liberal than moderate or conservative. It may or may not be accurate (though I think it is) but it is logical.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
Julia, are you the blog “Lady in waiting” with Queen JBM absent today? Haven’t you learned yet that we will talk about whatever we want to? In whatever manner we choose? No offense, but maybe you should mind your own business enabler.
Isn’t Chuck such a nice person.
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
DEFINITELY not NetB. He’s way too mature for that foolishness.
And, don’t be smug with the “Queen” JBM comments. I can call names too.
By Julia
April 17, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
chuck-I don’t believe I addressed you personally. So why are you being so rude to me?
I never said you couldn’t say what you like. Believe me, I know you’ll do that anyway.
Never been anyone’s “lady in waiting” but thanks. ;)
By Jack
April 17, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
GOB. Apples and oranges.
Chuck. Julia is one nice lady that chooses to grace this blog. Wake up on the wrong side of the bed?
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
AIDS is behavior related EXCEPT for that one single solitary case of the 11 year old at my church in NY who got it from her dentist.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
I’m sure that the millions of children in Africa infected with AIDS appreciate your compassion for their situation, Chuck. It’s good to know that Christian charity and compassion survives in this mean-spirited world today.
Ignorant scum.
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
But, I know that’s the ONLY case in the world, so it really doesn’t matter.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
I think you are probably correct JBM, but if it is a regular, there are a limited number of people here who could pull that off. He’s one of the few.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
Yes Jack, I’m kind of bored today.
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
Why are you harping on the homosexuals about sin when you yourself struggle with sin?
Julia, who on earth were you referring to with this comment? That stuff-starter over there does NOT struggle with sin. Didn’t you know, he’s perfect? He was sent here to show all gays how imperfect they are and how if they deny their feelings, they can be as perfect as he is!
By Julia
April 17, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Thank you Jack! Did you have a good weekend?
By lozen
April 17, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Some very good responses this morning from Kimberly, Billy, 72john, RF, Renee. There is no hope for appealing to Randy’s intellect (?), ladies and gentlemen, bless his simplistic, superstitious little heart. I’m reading “The Misquoted Jesus” and it’s fascinating. All the changes that were made in what became the bible during the first, second, and third centuries when so many different christian groups, each with different beliefs about Jesus, tried to show that their understanding was right and all the other groups were wrong! We do not know what jesus said. We have never known what jesus really said because it has been changed so many times and then translated so many times. I didn’t realize until reading this book that some early christians believed the god of the old testament and the god of jesus were two different gods!
By Vermin8
April 17, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Chuck hasn’t addressed by question, so I will address: I am a heck of a lot more scathed by the insistence of those who try to tell me what I’ve been through and what effect it had me IN CONTRADICTION TO STATED FACTS than I was my any divorce.
By Julia
April 17, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
Thanks JBM! I forgot that Jesus apparently wasn’t the only one that was “perfect”. LOL
By Billy
April 17, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
Chuck — While I somewhat agree with you on the funding for research issue, I think you’ll find that true conservatives would not be opposed to gays marrying or adopting. True conservatives would not advocate making laws to prevent gays from attaining equality.
And, yes, it is logical to assume that more gays are liberal than are conservative. But that is due not to the nature of homosexuality, but to the nature of today’s breed of conservative that thinks gays should be relegated to second-class citizen status if they are unwilling to change their sinful ways. I, too, have a hard time understanding how many gays like Andrew Sullivan can support Bush and his fellow religious wack-jobs whose political power comes from a base that is driven entirely by Jebus’ magic tricks, Old Testament vengeance, and homophobia. But they believe in fiscal restraint and small government, so they vote Republican. That’s likely to change soon (I hope) since the Republican party evidently thinks it can spend whatever it wants in its bid to hasten the Rapture.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
Chuck. The AIDS comment was asinine. If you really think that, you need help. There are many people who have contracted this deadly disease who are not homosexual. What a foolish statement to make. What? Can’t get a sufficient rise out of the folks on this blog today? Errrrrrrr.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
For instance, I find it repugnant that we spend more of our limited research funds on AIDS, a disease that is totally related to BEHAVIOR and nearly 100% preventable
What is truly repugnant are people who believe that sexuality outside of the narrow constraints they deem acceptable should be punishable by death, the belief that someone people who ARE infected with AIDS because of unprotected sex DESERVE to be sick and DESERVE to die.
The same people who wanted to ignore AIDS 20 years ago because it was “killing all the right people” are the ones who want to cut back on research today for the same reasons. Never MIND the predictions made by every reputable medical association that AIDS represents a profound threat to the world population. These…people…and I hesitate to use that description on a group so clearly lacking in basic humanity…would rather sit back on their self-righteous backsides and watch millions of people die because they deserve it.
Oh yeah. These people are the epitome of Christian charity.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
A very nice weekend Julia. A fun time was had by all. :) Hope you had a good Easter.
By lozen
April 17, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
A response to : By Randy April 17, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this No making 72John happy today. I guess the logical question would be, 72John, who are you trying to convince you lifestyle is OK, me or you.
I would ask you the same question Randy… who are you trying to convince with your simple religious beliefs, me or you?
By thegoddess
April 17, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this
Chuck, someday you just might have to have a heart transplant (you need one that’s for sure), and you’ll have many, many blood transfusions so, just in case things do go around, be careful what you say about cutting research money for AIDS/HIV.
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
I’m just so glad that most of you know better than to really believe chuck and people like him are really representatives of Christ.
I’m not meaning to attack you, chuck, but each and every opportunity you get, you make it your business to say the most hateful thing you can possibly think of. There is no way on earth that you could represent Christ or His message. Even if you take religion out of it, even if you don’t believe in Christ the Savior, but Christ as a human, there’s still no way that you even partially mirror the man that he was. You have ZERO compassion, patience - nada, love- zilch, temperance, humility, meekness, goodness, kindness: NONE.
Instead of saying, what can I do to edify these folks today? How can I make a deposit into their lives? You think about how you can sap them of any bit of positive energy they have.
I don’t know why I’m even bothering to say this, I already know your response (if you offer any at all).
To suggest that those who have AIDS have it because of their “behavior” is just low. Just plain LOW.
My good friend, a female, contracted AIDS from her husband, to whom she was faithful until the day he died. She is in a network of HUNDREDS of women across the country who contracted it from cheating husbands. Okay, maybe she got it because of “behavior” but it sure wasn’t HER behavior.
There are so many stories like hers… but you don’t quite hear them with your head in the sand. That beam in your eye has really blurred your vision. You should get it checked out.
By lozen
April 17, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
What a big heart you have Chuck. I have a few words for you: Africa! surgery requiring blood transfusion! helpless little fetus that you love so much! rape! pedophile! Lying husbands. Lying wives. Lying lovers! 72John and JBM are absolutely right in their assessment of your character.
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
I am not sure Chuck would even know about the hetero-AIDS issues in Africa today. Would connote a certain knowledge about the world he unlikely to find in all the hate of the Old Testament.
By Billy
April 17, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Chilao — it wouldn’t matter what he knows or doesn’t know. It would probably still be their faults they got AIDS in the first place.
By Justin
April 17, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Jack, I agree with your comment about Chuck’s AIDS comment. This just shows his ignorance and his prejudice.
By RF
April 17, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
No offense, but maybe you should mind your own business enabler. So now we know what Judas must have said to Christ right before the betrayal…
chuck is one of many who honestly see AIDS and HIV as ‘the gay plague’. Many preachers have preached it (heard one a few years ago in person) and many homophobes use it as their scare tactic— “become gay and look what’ll happen!!”
Geez, the IQ level here today is dropping by the moment!
By Jack
April 17, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
“Chilao — it wouldn’t matter what he knows or doesn’t know. It would probably still be their faults they got AIDS in the first place.”
I thought Spring break was over. Shouldn’t Little Billy be in school?
By Billy
April 17, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Jack, do you disagree with me? Chuck and his ilk see AIDS as God’s punishment for people’s sins. How was my post immature or juvenile?
By Jack
April 17, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
Chuck has probably never seen someone he loves die the slow agonizing death that AIDS is. Have you Chuck?
By The72John
April 17, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
Any moment now, Chuck will be cutting-and-pasting something from a fundamentalist web site that proclaims absolutely and beyond a shadow of a doubt that AIDS is God’s punishment. It will be built on insinutation, strawmen, judgement and condemnation, and Chuck will tell all of us how he is the only real Christian around because the rest of us will tell him it’s hogwash, and inhuman hogwash at that.
Ah, religious fundamentalists. The real plague.
By Justin
April 17, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
I think the biggest factor affecting children after divorce is how the parents handle their post-divorce relationship. If both parents realize “Okay, we didn’t make it, let’s keep our children out of our disagreements, and put their needs first”, then children are much better off. However, the problem comes when parents try to pit the children against the other parent, see the children as a trophy to be won, and try to divide their loyalties.
Often that is why many good fathers figure that the best thing to do is just play a low-key role in order not to have any more emotional damage done to their children. It reminds me of the biblical story of Solomon and the two mothers. In order not to have their children emotionally scarred (death), they would rather let the mother take control, play the role the courts has assigned them, and pay their court-ordered child support whether fair or not.
By Mara
April 17, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
I bet the Log Cabin Republicans would be shocked to find out they are really liberals and not the conservatives they thought they were! LOL!
Kimberly - Randy believes Fox News is “fair and balanced” because they told him so. For people like him, if they trust the messanger, they don’t question the message.
Randy @ 9:36 - “Some of these people have gained position as they know that they are in the minority and fear the the power of Christ will get so strong as to make them give up their sinful lifestyles and accept him as their lord and savior.”
Actually, it’s the power of some of his “followers” that we fear. They are the ones who insist that we live as they think we should.
Randy @ 10:57 - “But I realize the greatness of freedom and that I don’t want to make anybody do anything against their will.”
But you do Randy, you DO want to make people do stuff they don’t want to do. Aren’t you one of those who wants to make pregnant women carry to term, regardless of their needs? Aren’t you one of those who wants to force gays into 2nd class citizenship by removing orientation from anti-discrimination legislation?
By Jack
April 17, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
Billy. You have to ask?
By The72John
April 17, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
You almost had me there, Justin. You sounded rational and sensible about post-divorce handling of children - until the child support thing came up again.
How do you reconcile your claim that all you care about is your child with your desire not to pay child support?
By Justin
April 17, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
A couple of things that will make divorce easier and decrease the number of divorces will be to pass laws so that one person from the marriage can’t take all the assets and in cases where there isn’t a history of abuse, shared parenting (joint legal and physical custody) is the norm. Shared parenting doesn’t necessarily mean a 50/50 split in time with the children, but puts both parents on the same level as far as making decisions for the children.
By Eirik
April 17, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
I don’t especially like Chuck, and I don’t agree with him about AIDS research but the other gay men on this blog can’t completely dismiss his opinion as neanderthal…AIDS is preventable…As an HIV negative, gay man in his 40s who lived in the San Francisco area from 1980 to 1986 I think I am qualified to say that we (gay men) bear responsibility for many aspects of the AIDS epidemic. I’m not unsympathetic…I’ve been to many funerals, but the gay community still has a long way to go in this fight…and the cocktails don’t work forever.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
Billy. Maybe I mis-read your post. It sounded like you agree with the Chuckmaster. If you do not agree with him, please accept my apology.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
~shaking my head~
I am completely outdone by your AIDS comment, Chuck (not that you care). You’ve come on here, and in a matter of hours have made baseless, low-down (to put it lightly) statements, attacked Julia, and the list goes on and on.
I can’t even understand the AIDS comment. But oh well…. Oh and then the homosexuals vote liberal thing. Soooo not true, I’m not Democratic, and don’t vote democratic, though I might vote for a democrat. Have you ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans? Never mind, probably not…
By The72John
April 17, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
You may be qualified to say that about yourself, Eirik, but you certainly aren’t qualified to say it about anyone else. Just because you may have participated in bathhouse orgies and regular unprotected sex doesn’t mean the rest of us have.
And how do you suggest that gay men are responsible for the millions of infected men, women and children in Africa alone, for instance? I’m pretty sure that responsibility is borne by the heterosexual men who are promiscuous and then refuse to wear condoms when they sleep with their wives.
By Mara
April 17, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
Randy - I don’t think there is any argument that practicing the homosexuality lifestyle is a sin
Um, I think that is demonstrably wrong. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, evidently doesn’t think it’s a sin. The Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, doesn’t agree that it’s a sin. A majority of the Anglican House of Bishops, I’m guessing, doesn’t agree, either. So it would seem that there is some debate about the sinfulness of homosexuality.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
I didn’t say their behavior, I said behavior. I think it is tragic that someone would commit adultery and then pass their own sin to their wives/husbands and ultimately to the children. The problem with these cases is that while they are REAL and TRAGIC, so are other cases like children who get leukemia, people who get heart disease, juvenile diabetes, asthma etc. The only reason AIDS seems to trump all of these other diseases is because of the gay lobby. Do you really believe we should spend MORE on AIDS research than we do on Leukemia?
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Jack - Billy was building on what I stated, that’s all. (he not agreeing with Chuck, just ‘explaining’ Chuck’s view)
By Jack
April 17, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
They may have a cure Chuck. They just haven’t bled enough money from those doing the treatment now.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
The only reason AIDS seems to trump all of these other diseases is because of the gay lobby.
WHAT???????? It has nothing to do with the alarming rate in which people are being infected and/or dying and that there is no cure….never mind.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
I don’t know where all the venom is coming from. This is what I said:
For instance, I find it repugnant that we spend more of our limited research funds on AIDS, a disease that is totally related to BEHAVIOR and nearly 100% preventable, than we do on childhood leukemia, heart disease and cancer combined. OR, most of us are against gay marriage and gay adoption.
Are ya’ll denying that AIDS is 100% preventable? Are ya’ll saying that the life of a child with AIDS is more valuable somehow than the life of a child with leukemia? It is impossible to have a logical, rational debate with people who don’t think logically. That statement was totally innocuous. Notice I did NOT SAY that there should be NO FUNDING for AIDS. Ya’ll just assumed that. Ya’ll are a pitiable lot for sure.
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
Eirik, I’m really surprised at you. I am so sick and tired of hearing the whole “minorities don’t matter” argument.
Okay, maybe there are few heterosexuals that contract the virus from their doctors. Only 7 in the country who contract it from their husbands. Only 4 who contract it from their mother’s womb. Few who contract it when the condom breaks. Eleven homosexuals who contract it from the partner who wasn’t as faithful as he said he was. Or sevem who despite being responsible and getting tested before beginning a sexual relationship, still contracted it when the disease was lying dormant in his/her partner. I know, I know. There are only 2 people in the whole world who contracted the virus from a rapist. I know. There’s only a half a person who contracted the virus when the hospital needle wasn’t disposed of properly. Only 3.5 in the whole world who got it when they were unknowingly drugged and violated.
Those minority cases really don’t matter. In the grand scheme of things, AIDS is a nasty man’s disease. A nasty gay man’s disease, and it only affects the dirty non-Christians who choose to be gay.
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
Now this is asinine.
perhaps because AIDS is a greater threat world-wide than some of the others mentioned. Asthma? Known any communities decimated by Asthma? geeeez.
Juvenile Diabites is a product of our unhealthy eating habits. Self-induced, stop the research. LOL
but we can be sure that if HIV had not manifested itself in the US FIRST with the gay community, there would be all kinds of support for medical research, initially. See the ‘And the Band Played On’.
anyone know anything about what the researchers consider Patient(HIV) Zero (in the US)? worth some research.
By Justin
April 17, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
The72John, I don’t mind paying to support my children. However, when the “entire financial support” falls on me and I don’t have a say so about how the money is spent bothers me. And, she constantly states she needs more. Now, mind you, this is someone who makes a six-figure salary, much more than me, but yet can’t make $1700 a month for two children. I have my children 40-45% of the time and I pick up all the costs at my house. And, I have them full-time during the summer months while I continue to pay her the court-ordered cs. All I ask is that the money follow the children for their needs. During the summer months, I really need that money for their camp and activities. So, do not peg me as a father that doesn’t want to pay child support. I just want the money to truly be used for their needs and not hers.
By Eirik
April 17, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
72John,
I’ve been openly gay for 25 years and I have not once been to a bathhouse or participated in an orgy…that was my point..which you apparently missed. I was at ground zero of the AIDS epidemic but never became infected because I was responsible, and I form monogamous relationships.
And the fact that Africa has it’s own AIDS crisis doesn’t mean American gay men aren’t still responsible for preventing our own infections.
So what’s your response when the heterosexuals say they don’t want their taxes going to pay for gay’s irresponsible behavior?
I agree with them, but we have to have a response don’t we?
How many people have you watched die? I’ve watched four.
By Julia/Enabler
April 17, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
Ya’ll are a pitiable lot for sure.
Maybe Judas said this to the other disciples.
By RF
April 17, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
AIDS, a disease that is totally related to BEHAVIOR and nearly 100% preventable
Not looking for an argument, just a debate. Whose behavior, exactly, are you referring to so we don’t misunderstand you?
By Justin
April 17, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Many young girls are being infected with AIDS in many African countries. There is a belief by many men that if they are with a virgin, then it cures the disease. Thus, the disease is passed to the younger females. It is a tragedy and disgusts me when people state it is a plague on sinners.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
AIDS is NOT 100% preventable, although behavior modifications in people’s lifestyle (and lifestyle does not equal gay in this statement) could significantly bring down the amount of people being affected. But unprotected sex and sharing needles is not the only way you can get AIDS so, it is not totally preventable.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
Chuck wants to talk about rational debate? The man who immediately and universally blames gay people for just about everything?
I’m sure that in a PERFECT world AIDS is 100% preventable, but we don’t live in a perfect world. Chuck claims to, of course, but we know that to be false.
Chuck continues to believe that the victims of AIDS somehow deserve their disease. It doesn’t matter if an illness is preventable. It certainly doesn’t matter to the children who are born infected or the wives and husbands of unfaithful partners.
There are 40 million people worldwide infected with an incurable and almost completely fatal disease. That number is increasing. I think we probably need to do something about that. I think that PROBABLY justifies a substantial amount of research.
Frankly, I don’t think we should be judging what disease gets more research funding based on the moral quantifications of religious fundamentalists.
By Eirik
April 17, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me…
I’m sorry but you lost me there..
By chuck
April 17, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
In all the years since 1981 Renee, there have been less than 900,000 cases of AIDS diagnosed in the United States. Number of people living with HIV/AIDS Approx. 900,000 Number of people who may not know they are HIV pos. Approx. 300,000 Number of new HIV infections per year Approx. 40,000 Percent of new HIV infections who are male 70% Percent of new HIV infections who are female 30% Cumulative AIDS cases (as of June 2000) 753,907 Percent of AIDS cases (as of June 2000) who are male 76% Percent of AIDS cases (as of June 2000) who are female 24% Number of new AIDS cases (7/99-6/00) 43,517 Cumulative number who have died from AIDS 438,795 Percent of AIDS deaths who are male 85% Percent of AIDS deaths who are female 15%
Compare this to the number of CANCER cases for ONE year, 2002.
All types of cancers except basal and squamous cell skin cancers and in situ carcinomas except urinary bladder cancer: 1,284,900 new cases, and an estimated 555,500 deaths in the year 2002.
Compare this to Diabetes:
Total prevalence of diabetes in the United States, all ages, 2002 Total: 18.2 million people — 6.3% of the population — have diabetes.
Diagnosed: 13.0 million people
Undiagnosed: 5.2 million people
Compare it to the numbers of people with heart disease:
Number of noninstitutionalized adults with diagnosed heart disease: 23.5 million (2003)
Percent of noninstitutionalized adults with diagnosed heart disease: 11 (2003)
There is NO COMPARISON. This is a non-argument if you think logically.
By Eirik
April 17, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
I fat fingered my last comment…
it should have read:
“I don’t agree with them, but we have to have a response don’t we?”
By RF
April 17, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Are ya’ll denying that AIDS is 100% preventable?
I’ll tell you I’m denying it. What disease do we have out there that is completely preventable?
By RF
April 17, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
Eirik- look up some numbers, dude. More hetero people are getting it these days than us because they think they can’t get it because it’s a “gay disease”. Most, and I say most gay men have learned to be responsible. They’ve learned from the heartache you’ve lived through by watching friends die. What about the meteoric rise in teen pregnancy? Trust me, that’s becoming much more of an epidemic than AIDS today.
By Archie
April 17, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
I am afraid I have to echo the comments of several bloggers about the comments of Chuck. Chuck’s comments are callous and un-christian like and they remind me of a friend’s comments who happens to be conservative without rhyme or reason. I mean I have told this friend of mine he is a homophobe. This friend looked,looked for a church that shared his anti-homosexual philosophy. The thing is I have never heard anyone else say that’s what they were looking for in a church. I have told this friend that there is something wrong with him mentally, but to no avail and that’s how I feel about Chuck and that’s why I don’t argue with Chuck as it will have no effect. If a person is irrational politically one way or the other, logical political statements will have zero effect on them because such a person will regurgitate what they hear coming from a talk show,etc.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
LOL Julia, I looove the name change. Way to accept responsibility.
Ummm RF…you know the answer to that. LOL
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Are ya’ll saying that the life of a child with AIDS is more valuable somehow than the life of a child with leukemia?
No, I’m not. Are you saying that the life of a child with Leukemia is more valuable somehow than the life of a child with AIDS?
Leukemia happens to be close to my heart because it killed my father. AIDS is also close to my heart because the majority of my friends are HIV positive or have full-blown AIDS.
I see no reason to cut back on funding for AIDS research as long as the disease infects (and affects) so many people in this country and beyond. This is a widespread disease, regardless of the origin, or the cause, it’s here and it’s not going anywhere until we continue to educate the masses and work toward finding a cure.
You’ve probably never seen anyone die from AIDS (granted, that’s a pretty big assumption on my part). I’m pretty sure that if you have a fragment of a heart, all it’ll take is for you to meet one person who is sick with the disease before you realize how important this fight is; how important awareness, education and research are to the fight against AIDS.
It doesn’t matter where they got it or how they got it or whether they were “saved” or not, or had “acceptable” behavior or not… what matters is that these people, these humans, children of God, live in daily agony waiting, praying, hoping, wishing, for a cure. They go blind. They are covered from head to toe with boils. They suffer night sweats. They lose their hair, they go deaf. They get infections. They suffer from sore muscles, constant aches, fevers, low energy, blurred vision, ear ringing (and let’s not forget the stares, whispers, and pointing)… They die slow, agonizing, painful, peaceless and UNdignified deaths.
And you would suggest that we cut back on funding for research?
By chuck
April 17, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
RF, I am talking about the behavior of the people who HAVE AIDS and who SPREAD it. Drug addicts who share needles then have sex with spouses or strangers for money or whoever. Gays who have promiscuous sex with multiple partners who spread AIDS exponentially. Heterosexuals who have sex outside of marriage and then spread it to their spouses and subsequent children. It is an INTERNATIONAL TRAGEDY.
I am not unsympathetic to those who have contracted the disease innocently or NOT so innocently. I just don’t think that it is fair to spend so disproportionally on AIDS when there are other more deadly diseases that are not caused primarily by behavior AND that affect far more Americans than does AIDS.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Cancer is not communicable. AIDS is. Do you WANT to see the number of AIDS cases rival other diseases? And are you truly so short-sighted that you don’t believe that the massive epidemic in sub-saharan Africa and the growing epidemics in Asia and Eastern Europe won’t have significant impact on the world as they spiral more and more out of control?
Skip that - we know the answer. Any excuse to continue your crusade against all things gay, or perceived as gay. Any excuse for you to pass judgement on the many, many people you deem unworthy.
By Eirik
April 17, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
RF,
I agree with much of what you said but I don’t know if you have visited Los Angeles lately…
There’s still an epidemic…yes, there is less acceleration but young guys are still getting infected.
By Eirik
April 17, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
RF,
I agree with much of what you said but I don’t know if you have visited Los Angeles lately…
There’s still an epidemic…yes, there is less acceleration but young guys are still getting infected.
By Julia
April 17, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Renee-Thanks! I can now see that chuck is making people see how wonderful being a Christian is. And I, on the other hand, am causing people to want to stay away from Christ because I accept them and try to reach out in love and understanding. (Maybe one of these days I’ll get my act together.)
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Don’t we know what causes diabetes, beside the hereditary factor? Unhealthy, sweet diet? Soda pops? BonBons?
Don’t we know what causes heart disease? Unhealthy diet, fats in foods? Cheeseburgers? Pork BBQ? Smoking(let’s not forget that one….LOL)
My nutritionist mother would argue that.
So we need a pill to negate all that or something?
Face it, the only reason so many people like Chuck are anti-AIDS research is because it was manifested in the U.S. FIRST with the gay crowd. Now if it first was among prostitutes, who had bare-back johns, who were carrying it home to their church-going wives, the same group would be all for research(as well as prostitue extermination..LOL)
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
Hey chuck, can you please e-mail me at jbmnatl@yahoo.com? I would like you to read something but it’s Bible-based, so I don’t want to junk up the blog with it. Got an e-mail on Friday and immediately thought of you, just wasn’t here to share it.
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
I think the biggest HIV-increase groups are now urban black females, and rural southerners, both black and white.
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
s/b YOUNG rural southerners, both black and white.
By RF
April 17, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Julia- you sinful thang, you. And all this time you were making me want to go to church. What an idea! Okay, now seriously, if it weren’t for people like you, I’d have given up on church a LONG time ago!!
Chuck- very good, well articulated answer. You had me worried for a moment there.
Eirik- as long as there are communicable diseases, there will, unfortunately, be those who ignore the warnings. I don’t think the percentages though are any higher among gay men. Because they are drawn to cities like LA, NY, and Frisco, you see more of it there. Across the nation though, I doubt the percentages are any higher than any other sexual group.
By Jack
April 17, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
“And I, on the other hand, am causing people to want to stay away from Christ because I accept them and try to reach out in love and understanding. (Maybe one of these days I’ll get my act together.)”
Your act is together. :)
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Eirik, never mind, dear.
By Billy
April 17, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
72John — personally, the fact that cancer is NOT communicable but still affects so many people scares the hell out of me.
I know I’m at a very low risk of getting AIDS. My wife and I are faithful to each other. Neither of us uses drugs. Even blood transfusions now are very safe. The risk of me getting AIDS is almost as non-existent as possible. I also don’t know anyone personally who is HIV-positive. Hell, I don’t think I know any openly gay people.
I don’t drink heavily. I don’t smoke. I try to use sunscreen as much as possible. I still could get cancer. I have no way of preventing it. I have known several people to be affected by cancer.
The fact that there are people like Dana Reeve who die from lung cancer when they were nonsmokers illustrates the danger cancer poses. Cancer can strike people who live perfectly healthy lifesyles — alcohol- and tobacco-free, monogamus, frequent exercise, healthy diet, sunscreen whenever they go outside…That’s why it’s scary. I’m not scared of AIDS because my chances of getting it are practically nil. I’m scared of cancer because all of a sudden my cells could just decude to start growing extra fast.
My point it that even given his huge failings as a human being, Chuck has a point about the diseases. AIDS is largely preventable. A hermit who lives alone, never uses drugs, and never has sex is not going to get AIDS. Cancer, though, he might get.
But why are we arguing about this? Why is the funding an “either-or” question? Why, if we increase cancer research funding, must we decrease funding for AIDS research? Why not take that money we’re spending on the research and development of new “bunker-busting” nuk-yu-lar weapons and put it into finding a cure for both epidemics? Why don’t we demand that the FDA approve the HPV vaccine, which would prevent millions of women from contracting genital warts, the leading cause of cervical cancer? Take those cases of cervical cancer out of the equation, and there’s a bit more money per cancer patient.
Let’s fund them both heavily. Take some money away from the Pentagon. Repeal the Bush tax cuts, the billions given away to Big Oil…Bring back the Estate Tax. We can cure this stuff if we put those resources into it.
Another way to cure it? Tell the pharmeceutical companies that if they aren’t cured in ten years that we’ll allow reimportation of drugs from Canada. Or better yet, that no patent on a drug will last for more than a year. Or that we’re legalizing pot so people won’t need to buy Zoloft…
By Billy
April 17, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
72John — personally, the fact that cancer is NOT communicable but still affects so many people scares the hell out of me.
I know I’m at a very low risk of getting AIDS. My wife and I are faithful to each other. Neither of us uses drugs. Even blood transfusions now are very safe. The risk of me getting AIDS is almost as non-existent as possible. I also don’t know anyone personally who is HIV-positive. Hell, I don’t think I know any openly gay people.
I don’t drink heavily. I don’t smoke. I try to use sunscreen as much as possible. I still could get cancer. I have no way of preventing it. I have known several people to be affected by cancer.
The fact that there are people like Dana Reeve who die from lung cancer when they were nonsmokers illustrates the danger cancer poses. Cancer can strike people who live perfectly healthy lifesyles — alcohol- and tobacco-free, monogamus, frequent exercise, healthy diet, sunscreen whenever they go outside…That’s why it’s scary. I’m not scared of AIDS because my chances of getting it are practically nil. I’m scared of cancer because all of a sudden my cells could just decude to start growing extra fast.
My point it that even given his huge failings as a human being, Chuck has a point about the diseases. AIDS is largely preventable. A hermit who lives alone, never uses drugs, and never has sex is not going to get AIDS. Cancer, though, he might get.
But why are we arguing about this? Why is the funding an “either-or” question? Why, if we increase cancer research funding, must we decrease funding for AIDS research? Why not take that money we’re spending on the research and development of new “bunker-busting” nuk-yu-lar weapons and put it into finding a cure for both epidemics? Why don’t we demand that the FDA approve the HPV vaccine, which would prevent millions of women from contracting genital warts, the leading cause of cervical cancer? Take those cases of cervical cancer out of the equation, and there’s a bit more money per cancer patient.
Let’s fund them both heavily. Take some money away from the Pentagon. Repeal the Bush tax cuts, the billions given away to Big Oil…Bring back the Estate Tax. We can cure this stuff if we put those resources into it.
Another way to cure it? Tell the pharmeceutical companies that if they aren’t cured in ten years that we’ll allow reimportation of drugs from Canada. Or better yet, that no patent on a drug will last for more than a year. Or that we’re legalizing pot so people won’t need to buy Zoloft…
By Eirik
April 17, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
RF,
Point taken. But gay people are smarter…so we should know better :).
Seriously though, I know many young guys that see AIDS as a manageable disease…and why not? There are drugs available that can keep you pretty much in normal health indefinitely..if you can get them. I have a friend that has been positive since 1989 and has never shown any symptoms of AIDS. Fortunately he has good insurance and has access to the latest drugs.
By Justin
April 17, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Should no-fault divorce be curtailed?
Divorce where a winner takes all should definitely be curtailed!
So you want to get married and live a happy good life
Posted By: cubalife
Date: 10 August 2002
If I could offer a young man one piece of sage advice, it would be this:
Don’t get married.
Don’t do it. Come the divorce, as come it probably will, the courts will systematically shear you of your children, your house, and huge amounts of your income for twenty years. Don’t do it. It isn’t worth it. Nothing is.
My saying this usually brings, from women, cries that I’m an extremist or woman-hater. No.
The problem is not women, but the courts. Men can behave every bit as reprehensibly as women, though they go about it differently. But the judicial system, which is politicized to the gills, utterly favors women over men in divorce cases, without remorse, decency, or concern for children.
Should you doubt this, read, before you pop the most foolish of questions, “From Courtship to Courthouse”, by the divorce lawyer Jed Abraham.
Writes Abraham, “If you’re like most men, you’re married, or you hope to marry some day. You think you deserve to live happily ever after, but if things don’t work out that way, you’ll get a civilized divorce and move on. You’ll stay pals with your ex, and you’ll see your kids as often as you want.
“You have no idea what you’re getting into.”
And you don’t. Not the faintest freaking clue.
A few facts from Abraham:
“The odds are 50% that your marriage will end in divorce. The odds are 70% that your divorce will be filed by your wife. The odds are 80% that your wife will get custody of your children-plus child support, alimony, and/or a hefty chunk of your property.”
That is how it is.
Yes, I know: You don’t think this applies to you. Cup Cake loves you. She would never behave in such a way. Think again. You have no conception of the hatred that divorce engenders. Men are callous; women are mean. When a family breaks up, when a life dreamed of disappears in flames and emotions go limbic, women are not the kinder sex, and certainly not the more rational. And Cup Cake will have the absolute upper hand, with the full power of the state to help her express her dissatisfaction with you.
Abraham: “If your wages are not withheld and you fail to pay your child support, the State will garnish your pay, slap liens on your property, intercept your tax refunds, report you to credit agencies, discontinue your driver’s license, suspend your professional and business permits, hold you in contempt of court, put your face on a wanted poster, throw you in jail, and deny you food stamps. But if your ex doesn’t spend that very same support on the children, the State will do … nothing.”
It gets worse. There is, for example, “imputed income.” This means that your child support will be based not on what your children need, not on what you earn, but on what the court decides you could earn.
Don’t do it.
If you love Cup Cake, live with her. Be kind to her. Be loyal to her. She may be as nice as you think she is: Many women are. Buy her roses. Just don’t marry her, or have children with her. If the laws were even-handed, marriage would be an admirable institution. The laws aren’t equal.
But it’s the kids she’ll use, should things get nasty, to tear your guts out. If you’re sure that Cup Cake won’t do this, you’re crazy. True, she may not. Not all women do, or not to the same degree. But you won’t know until it’s too late. And the courts will do anything she wants.
Abraham: “Your ex will warm to calling all the shots. She may cancel your visitation now and then. If she’s truly mean-spirited, she’ll go much further. Under the cover of her court-appointed role as sole custodian, she’ll systematically sever your relationship with the children. She’ll badmouth you to them. She’ll schedule their extracurricular activities during your visitation time. For good measure, she may accuse you of domestic violence and child abuse.”
Think “joint custody” is the answer? The courts won’t enforce it. What are you going to do - sue Mommy? The kids will hate you for it. Do you believe in pre-nups? The courts ignore them. Read Abraham. It’s all there.
Then, says Abraham, there’s the killer: “More efficiently, your ex may simply move with the children to a distant community, with the law’s acquiescence.”
Kids are the crunch, guys. They hurt. And she will know it, and use it. The courts will help her. At bottom, the position of the courts is that the children are her property, like furniture. Judges don’t care about you at all.
Ever drive away from what used to be your home, with your daughter of four streaking across the parking lot, yelling, “Daddy! Daddy! Please come back!”-and you can’t?
Ever have your little girl of four say, “Daddy, can I get my birthday present early?”
“Why, Pumpkin?”
“Well … after the divorce we might move, and I won’t see you again.”
That’s what you are in for, guys. Don’t do it. You’ll be suicidally depressed, miss your kids to the point of desperation, be almost frantic - and the courts will make sure you can do nothing about it. The ex will probably enjoy it.
That’s the reality. Don’t believe it? Talk to men who have been there.
Why do women do these things? Not because they’re evil. Cup Cake is probably a perfectly decent woman in her dealing with the rest of the earth. She’ll do it because she hates you, which is the normal outcome of a divorce. She’ll do it because she can. She’s furious because the marriage “didn’t work”, which will be “entirely your fault”.
And the law gives her every incentive: She will get the house, the kids, the child support-and she knows she will. If women knew they had an even chance of not getting custody, of having to pay child support, the divorce rate would drop like a prom dress and joint custody would suddenly mean joint custody. Women love their children as much as men do.
But that’s not how it is. The courts encourage divorce, and they rape men. Get used to it.
“The odds are it doesn’t pay for you to marry and have kids.”
That’s a fact, guys. Think about it.
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Eirik, never mind, dear.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
Archie, could you tell me HOW the comments that I have made on this topic are callous? It amazes me that when you look at 1.2 million NEW cases of cancer EVERY YEAR compared to 900,000 cases of AIDS in 25 years that you can justify spending MORE on AIDS research than on CANCER research. I have not said that we should cut out all spending on AIDS but if you don’t see the REASON for this additional spending as being POLITICALLY motivated, then your head is in the sand.
By RF
April 17, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
Billy- with all the fund raisers I see and participate in for various kinds of cancer research, you’d think they’d find a cure. I highly doubt more money is raised and donated to AIDS research. Could be, but I doubt it. There’s a cancer fundraiser going on allllll the time. Where does all that money go, I wonder??
By Billy
April 17, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
Sorry about the double post; the board went wonky…
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
LOL @Julia - had to read yours twice, to get that negate the positive and charge(+) the negative. sounding like some Cat I am series book, wasn’t there one where someone said everything the opposite of intended.
or am I thinking of one of the Indians in Little Big Man? LOL
By Justin
April 17, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
As you ponder snuggling forever with your sweetheart, compare the lives of your bachelor and your married friends. The bachelors come and go as the mood strikes them, order their apartments with squalid abandon, drive Miatas or Harleys if they choose, and live in such pleasant dissolution as is consonant with continued employment. The married guy lives in a vast echoing mortgage beyond his means, drives sensible cars he doesn’t like, and loses his old friends because he isn’t allowed to hang out with them. Self-help books to the contrary, marriage does not rest on compromises, but on concessions. You will make all of them. Perhaps it doesn’t have to be this way. But it is this way. Your sweetheart has only one reason for marriage: to get her legal hooks into you. She doesn’t think of it in these terms, yet, and she has no evil intentions (at least she fakes so you won’t think so). She just wants a nice quiet home in the remote suburbs where she can live uneventfully, raise progeny, and keep her eye on you. If you think surveillance isn’t part of the contract, try going out late with your old buddies. Marriage is an institution founded on mistrust. If she thought you would stick around if not compelled, she wouldn’t need marriage. She wants monogamy, at least for you and, with some frequency, for herself. Marriage exists to control the male. She will, however, want to have children. Women do. At which point, God help you. Given the schools, drugs, latch-keyism consequent first to working parents and then to divorce, and the cultural pressure on children to be slatterns and dope-dealers, reproduction is a gamble. You may not even particularly like them, or they, you. Nobody talks about this, but how many people do you know who hardly talk to their grown children? And you’ve just tied yourself into twenty years of raising them. The moment Junior enters wherever it is that we are, Your sweetheart will have you screwed to the wall. She won’t think of it this way, yet. She’ll be delighted with the cooing bundle of joy, his little fingers, his little toes, etc. But divorce usually comes. The chances are two to one that she will file: Women are more eager than men to enter marriage, and more eager to leave it — with the kids, the house, and the child support. It won’t be amicable, not after seven years. You will be astonished at how ruthless she will be, how well she knows the law, and how utterly hostile to divorcing fathers the law is. You don’t understand how bad the divorce courts are. You probably don’t know what “imputed income” is. You think that “joint custody” means “joint custody.” Think again. Quite possibly you will have to support her while she moves with your kids to F******* with an Air Force colonel she met in a meat bar. In short, marriage often means turning twenty-five years of your life into smoking wreckage. Yes, happy marriages exist (I personally know of one) and there are the somnolent marriages of habitual contentment or, perhaps, of quiet resignation. But the odds aren’t good. Permit me an heretical thought. In an age when neither s-x economically needs the other, in which women do not need protection from wild bears and marauding savages, not in the suburbs anyway, perhaps marriage doesn’t make sense, at least for men. The divorce courts remove all doubt. A young fellow might do well to stay single, keep his DNA to himself, pick such flowers as he might find along the way, and live his life as he likes.
By Brian Curtis
April 17, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
I find myself with the same starting-point question I had on the earlier divorce topic (prenups): Why is it so important to support and prolong marriages to begin with?
Seriously, folks. What’s the societal benefit that warrants getting the law involved? Do married couples contribute more to society? Are they better citizens? Is it important that as many people get and stay married as possible—-and if so, why?
The usual explanation is that “it benefits children”… but that’s a red herring. We don’t require married couples to have kids, and we don’t dissolve marriages that don’t produce them—-yet all the legislation and policies being discussed would apply equally to ALL married couples, regardless of parental status. So that’s not it.
Tell me, folks: Why the emphasis on marriage? Why make such a big deal of it that we need governmental action to protect it, like some sort of endangered species?
By Jack
April 17, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
The tax cuts created jobs. Do you want 1/2 of all you worked for to go to Uncle Sam when you die? They’ll legalize pot when they do the fair tax.
By Billy
April 17, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
RF — More raised for cancer than for AIDS? No, you’re probably right. But I think the government does fund more for AIDS than for cancer, especially when you look at the numbers who have each. Again, I say this knowing that I’m really not at risk of AIDS, but I could develop melanoma any day because my parents didn’t know in the late 70s/early 80s how dangerous the sun was…
By Brian Curtis
April 17, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
I find myself with the same starting-point question I had on the earlier divorce topic (prenups): Why is it so important to support and prolong marriages to begin with?
Seriously, folks. What’s the societal benefit that warrants getting the law involved? Do married couples contribute more to society? Are they better citizens? Is it important that as many people get and stay married as possible—-and if so, why?
The usual explanation is that “it benefits children”… but that’s a red herring. We don’t require married couples to have kids, and we don’t dissolve marriages that don’t produce them—-yet all the legislation and policies being discussed would apply equally to ALL married couples, regardless of parental status. So that’s not it.
Tell me, folks: Why the emphasis on marriage? Why make such a big deal of it that we need governmental action to protect it, like some sort of endangered species?
By Eirik
April 17, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
My last comment since I don’t want to continue to contribute to hijacking this weeks subject, and I have no opinion about divorce.
The criteria for funding research should be if it is good research, which sources like NIH are very qualified to determine. There’s absolutely no reason that cancer research should restict AIDS research, or vice-versa.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
Is something going on with the website again?
By GOB
April 17, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
Justin - Are you always this cheery, or only on here? It must be really depressing to be your friend if this is all they hear.
By Jason
April 17, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
Justin,
Excellent, Excellent, Excellent…
Wish I had read it 18 years ago before I met the harpie..
By kimberly
April 17, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
What incentive does a pharmaceutical company have for curing ANY disease for which they already have expensive “treatment options” or lifetime maintenance drugs which bring in $BILLION$? I personally believe that scientists have developed numerous cures that we’ll NEVER see. Without a profit motive, there is NO motive.
Look how much they spend on advertising. They’ll never be satisfied until we all stand in line at CVS every month for the rest of our lives. Cures would be counter to the profit motive — hence, no cures.
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Chuck - yep, on the website, and it is only Monday.
By lozen
April 17, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Hope you don’t mind 72John but this needs to be said many more times:
What is truly repugnant are people who believe that sexuality outside of the narrow constraints they deem acceptable should be punishable by death, the belief that people who ARE infected with AIDS because of unprotected sex DESERVE to be sick and DESERVE to die.
By Julia
April 17, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
I hate to say it but with the trillionaire drug companies/cartels running things I doubt that they WANT a cure. They would probably do everything in their power to prevent a real cure from seeing the light of day.
Justin-What about low-down men who misrepresent their income in court to get out of paying their fair share of child support? What about men who will not even see their children?
You make it seem as if all men are great fathers who are being raped by the courts. I won’t go into details but suffice it to say that my son’s “father” was NOT the one who was raped by the courts!
You seem to want men to stop marrying and having children. Is this what you’re really suggesting?
By lozen
April 17, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Hope you don’t mind 72John but this needs to be said many more times:
What is truly repugnant are people who believe that sexuality outside of the narrow constraints they deem acceptable should be punishable by death, the belief that people who ARE infected with AIDS because of unprotected sex DESERVE to be sick and DESERVE to die.
By Billy
April 17, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Jack — When I die, half of what I have will not go to Uncle Sam. None of it will, because I won’t have an estate worth more than TEN MILLION DOLLARS!!! You can argue against the estate tax all you want, but I have the ultimate argue FOR it: Paris Hilton.
And you say the tax cuts created jobs, I say it Zero change in jobs is better than the creation of ten million jobs at the expense of ten million others. After the tax cuts and 9/11, there was nowhere for the economy to go, eventually, but up.
By chuck
April 17, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
An example of research that is working is one on proteins and cancer being done by a doctor at UNC. He takes a biopsy of a melanoma, implants a certain type of protein in it and then puts it bak. The protein eats all of the melanoma cells and then travels throughout the body eating any cells that it can find. In his clinicals he has reversed melanoma death statistics. A friend of mine was part of the trial. Truly amazing.
By Archie
April 17, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Chuck you’re callous and un-christian like because you appear to hate the sinner and the sin and really only the sin of your choosing. As many have already said people have contracted the AIDS disease inspite of their behavior not just because of their behavior. In the post that I was referencing you referred to behavior. Of course everyone engaging in sexual behavior should be aware of diseases period but when anyone says it’s God’s punishment that a person catches a disease then they are callous. A friend of mine makes homosexuality a central reason for choosing a church. Wow!! I mean to focus on that with all of the good things to focus on with christianity, that’s what he chose as motivation to decide which church to attend. He mentioned other things but for him to even mention homosexuality it shows he has a major problem mentally.
By RF
April 17, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
chuck- what do you bet a pharmaceutical company will buy the patent to the UNC protein and try to produce it as a drug that will take like ten years to get approved?? If possible, it’ll be squelched for a long, long time I’ll bet.
By kimberly
April 17, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
The scientists who research and develop drugs, for the most part, DO care about what they’re doing. It’s not the scientists who decide what to fund, what to market, what to sit on, and what to sell. That’s the businessmen, CEOs and marketing whizz-heads; their actions indicate that they care only about profit.
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Wow, Justin. Do you guys have like an “anti-ex-wives club” or something? I wish you would put that much energy into moving forward with your life… Try to remind yourself frequently that there is nothing you can do to control people’s actions. But, there’s plenty you can do to control your reactions. Rest in the sweet knowledge that karma is real, and that whatever she does to hurt you will come back to her. Let that be enough for you.
I think I asked you before and you either didn’t answer me, or I missed it. How long ago did you divorce?
By chuck
April 17, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
but when anyone says it’s God’s punishment that a person catches a disease then they are callous.
Archie, you better check your glasses bud. I never said that. Have no idea where you got that. Oh…from what 72john said probably. Maybe if you are going to criticize me you ought to read MY posts instead of his.
RF, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised. I remember a story back in the late 70’s that came out about a patent on a device to increase gas mileage by 40% that was supposedly bought out by the oil companies. This will probably be no different. I am all in favor of reducing time to get a drug to market AND patent lengths as well. Medicine is way too important to make it exclusive. Certainly companies that develop new drugs should receive a royalty of some sort though.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
chuck- what do you bet a pharmaceutical company will buy the patent to the UNC protein and try to produce it as a drug that will take like ten years to get approved?? If possible, it’ll be squelched for a long, long time I’ll bet
I suspect Chuck doesn’t care about that, nor does he care that the pharmaceutical company will charge such outrageous prices for the drug that only the very wealthy will be able to afford it.
Yet again, in Chuck-land the poor are poor because they deserve to be.
Yay, Jesus!
By Justin
April 17, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
Driving the Divorce Rate: Who’s Teaching the Women?
August 3, 2003
by Art Lemasters
We know that with other things being equal, more children have healthier lives if they have both mothers and fathers in intact families. We have learned that with the high divorce rate, something needs to be done to train fathers to stay with their families and that far too many fathers abandon their wives and children, unwilling to abide by their responsibilities… We’ve been on the wrong track.
Wives have been filing for divorce at about twice the rate (more, in some places) of husbands. See the study report, “These Boots are Made for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce” (Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas W. Allen, 2000, The American Law and Economics Association) in which an enormous number of divorce certificates from four U.S. states were analyzed.
Why have so many supposedly conservative ministers and socio-political writers sermonized exclusively on the problem of husbands abandoning or being “absent” from their wives and children? Are we really doing women any good service by refusing to truthfully define the problems instigating the high rate of divorce in order to make it lower? Are we doing the potential children of divorce any good by the same?
So how can we assure that fewer children will suffer from the ill effects of divorce? According to the Brinig and Allen report, no-fault divorce and “who gets the children” are the predominant motivations—not “cruelty” (“6%,” with all forms of cruelty, including adultery). We have allowed the saturation of our media and government with subjective feminist propaganda, full of exaggerations, to divert our attention from the prevalent causes of divorce. We need to know more about those prevalent causes before we can take effective action to lower the divorce rate.
Who’s teaching the women? We know that many socially conservative organizations are now teaching men to be good fathers. Think about it. Women are learning about issues of marriage and dealing with husbands through Women’s Studies courses (feminist and humanist propaganda), local “battered women’s shelters” (which disseminate more of the same in each community) and many other kinds of organizations that teach women to be independent—independent from husbands. Women are also taught by such organizations to know the incentives to divorce (propaganda and tactics that make divorce an easy lifestyle option for them). Most conservative organizations have been recipients of some of the same liberal, anti-family propaganda—many without knowing it.
The Brinig and Allen report should be sufficient to dispell the common myth that fathers, more often than mothers, abandon their families, but there are other sources of fact on the same issue. Two more references are “Who Divorced Whom: Methodological and Theoretical Issues” [Sanford L. Braver, Marnie Whitley and Christine Ng. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage Vol 20(1/2) 1993, p.1.] and the May 21, 1991 National Center for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report [Vol. 38, No. 12 (S) 2].
Many conservative organizations and organizations of faith are teaching men to be good fathers and husbands. That may solve part of the problem, and it is a good effort. Who will teach women to be good wives and mothers?
[Adapted from first publication to the Family Operations forum on February the 1st, 2001.]
By Justin
April 17, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
HOW VICTIMIZED ARE DIVORCING WOMEN? By Cathy Young
On the heels of First Wives Club comes a more serious but equally tendentious treatment of the women-as-divorce-victims theme: journalist Karen Winner’s Divorced from Justice: The Abuse of Women and Children by Divorce Lawyers and Judges. With rhetoric out of a Gothic novel, Winner paints a grim picture in which divorcing women enter a world of “shadows and terror.” Trapped in a male-dominated system, they face economic ruin and the loss of their children. Winner credits Lenore Weitzman’s 1985 The Divorce Revolution as a trailblazer in documenting the abuse of women in divorce courts. Alas, she cannot use the factoid that made Weitzman one of America’s most quoted: that women’s income post-divorce drops 73 percent while men’s goes up 42 percent.
A fellow sociologist who recently reanalyzed Weitzman’s 1977 data found that the actual drop for women was 27 percent, the rise for men 10 percent; Weitzman has acknowledged her error. (There is evidence that, since non-custodial parents cannot deduct child support payments, while custodial parents don’t have to report them as taxable income, women come out ahead when taxes are factored in.)
An error of this size might be thought to cast doubt on the book’s value, but it doesn’t give Winner pause. Yet many of Weitzman’s other claims — picked up by Winner — are at odds with virtually all other research. She is the only scholar to find fathers’ non-payment of child support is not related to their financial hardships and that most of these men do not want more contact with their children.
Winner also says fathers who seek custody mostly do so as a ploy, to blackmail mothers into accepting less property and child support. Predictably, she concludes that gender-neutral custody laws hurt women and urges a return to explicit maternal preference.
This is a familiar argument. But those few researchers — such as Eleanor Maccoby and Robert Mnookin of Stanford — who have bothered to investigate rather than decry “custody blackmail” have found that it may occur but is far from common, both because few men stoop to such tactics and because an insincere custody bid may not work as a credible threat.
Winner contends, too, that under a veneer of neutrality the courts actually discriminate against mothers, giving custody to men in the majority of litigated cases. This pseudo-factoid deserves a separate analysis. For now, let’s just say it’s a whopper.
Undoubtedly, as Winner argues, far too many lawyers mistreat clients. But her contention that women are more vulnerable to such abuse is not backed by any research, only by more rhetoric that insultingly portrays women as guileless naifs. You’d never know that more husbands than wives in divorces have no legal representation.
Many studies show divorced men often feel helpless and abused by lawyers and the courts; Sanford Braver of Arizona State University has found they are more likely to feel this way than women, who are more satisfied by the legal process. In his study, 75 percent of the men and 35 percent of the women believed the system in divorce cases was slanted toward mothers; fewer than 10 percent of the women and no men said it was slanted toward fathers.
After years of deadbeat-dad-bashing, many scholars of both sexes now argue that many divorced dads vanish because they are disenfranchised, and that the way to help them be good fathers is to make sure they have a say in their children’s lives. Winner’s book is a throwback to a women good/men bad mind-set.
Sadly, it comes with a foreword from famed prosecutor Christopher Darden and blurbs from U.S. Congressman Jerrold Nadler — and conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher, undeterred by the quotations from radical feminists that pepper Divorced from Justice. Apparently, the idea of men as beasts and women as damsels in distress still has broad appeal.
Cathy Young is vice-president of the Women’s Freedom Network.
By Justin
April 17, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
The 13 Deadly Sins of Divorce By Gillis Triplett January 19, 2005
In the media, it is not uncommon to hear when certain people divorce, especially when the people are classified as celebrities or stars.
I call to your attention the very public divorces of music icon Lionel Richie versus Diane Alexander Richie, the famous NASCAR driver, Jeff Gordon versus Brooke Gordon, and the divorce battle between New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani versus Donna Hanover.
Many individuals who have traveled down the dark cold road of divorce, know very well how divorce can inflame bitter feelings, incite tense emotions and provoke people to commit harmful acts that they would not have otherwise committed. In this alarming article, I’ll expose The 13 Deadly Sins of Divorce. These are the harmful sins commonly committed by spouses once they are in the throes of divorce. Their aim? To dispense their own brand of vengeance, to somehow gain sympathy, or to gain the upper hand in their divorce court proceedings.
The women become so bitter that they engage in no holds barred male bashing. To these females, all men are dogs and they passionately convey that message to each and every female who crosses their path. These women join the ranks of other fuming feminists whose mission in life is to emasculate the male gender. They glory in the fact that they frequently succeed at eroding true masculinity and castrating real manhood. Their mantra, “Whatever a man can do, we can do better!” Other females resort to promiscuity, lesbianism, or turn to drugs and alcohol to bandage the pain caused by their divorce. Still others reduce themselves to willfully committing vengeful acts such as paternity fraud and marital fraud.
By then she was crying profusely and muttering statements such as, “I wished my parents would stop fighting, I can’t take this anymore,” and “Why can’t we be a normal family?” That precious little girl had become a victim of her parent’s nasty divorce and a casualty of their vicious child custody battle. Unfortunately, child custody battles have become the norm in our divorce prone society. Innocent children are forced into the fury as they are coaxed, coerced or bribed into choosing sides between parents. Although the child may not take the witness stand as in this case, the overflow of hostilities between the divorcing spouses will most likely leave deep emotional, psychological and social scars on the child’s life.
Members from the three families, Melissa’s, Ron’s and Ron’s new wife, all pleaded with Melissa not to drag the families through the family court. Melissa would not relent! She was adamant about obtaining full custody and forcing her ex-husband to start paying her child support. They had shielded their son from their divorce proceedings, but they could not do so in their child custody battle. In the end, Melissa won full custody and immediately removed their son from his stable household and familiar environment. That is when his life changed for the worse.
In his new home, there was no stability. His mother had various boyfriends and while she was out on dates, she would leave her son the remote control and microwave dinners. He spent most of his time watching music videos, MTV, BET and WWF; consequently his grades took a nose dive. He started displaying behavioral problems such as disrespecting his teachers and skipping school. Things escalated when he joined a gang and eventually started using drugs. While his life spiraled out of control, Melissa refused to call the boy’s father. Under no circumstances did she want her son communicating with his father or stepmother. She even prevented their son from attending his scheduled court ordered visits with his dad.
In the end, their son dropped out of school and was arrested on charges stemming from a gang related burglary. Melissa kept the boy’s father and stepmother in the dark about the proceedings until the trial was well underway. By that time it was literally too late for them to help. After the judge added up the aggravating sentencing factors: high school drop out, gang member, burglary, drug user, their 17-year-old son was given a 12 year sentence in an adult prison. As he was escorted away, Melissa broke down and cried. Her conscience had gotten the best of her. She went to her ex-husband and his wife and confessed. She admitted that she was bitter with Ron that he had remarried and that she had used their son to cause Ron as much pain as she possibly could. Her evil plot worked to perfection!
The Money Battle – Once a couple engages in the divorce court money battle, it seems as though they vacate all of their sensibilities, (moral and ethical). The soon to be ex-spouses turn into mortal combatants gripped in the war of all wars. If they loved each other, you wouldn’t know it. Not since they have switched gears and escalated into the - by any means necessary combat mode. This ruthless stance guides every decision that they make concerning their divorce. In this rigorous mindset, these spouses will resort to: hiding money in offshore accounts, using Internet tracking software, filing false financial affidavits, spying, stalking, forensic accounting, hiring private detectives, and lying to each other and about each other. And that is the short list! They will do and say whatever it takes to get the LION’S SHARE of the divorce proceedings, even if it means causing their soon to be ex to experience complete financial ruin!
The Scorched Earth Policy – This policy is actually taken from a classic military strategy. Prior to retreating, commanders would instruct troops to destroy everything: crops, trees, fuel, supplies, vehicles and anything that would be useful to the advancing army. In the divorce battlefield, some spouses are encouraged by divorce court attorneys to employ this policy. Most men know that the divorce court and family court is biased against them and they see no chance of getting a fair shake. By implementing the scorched earth policy, some men believe they can balance the field of combat. I followed one divorce case in which the husband, in one fail swoop, quit his high paying job, stopped paying insurance on the three family vehicles and emptied all of their bank accounts.
They owned numerous rental properties and he contacted the renters and advised them to stop paying rent. He told them to live there until his ex-wife served them with papers, then he destroyed all of the rental records. She had no way of knowing who paid what and when. In the empty rental units, he recruited vagrants and told them they could live there for free until someone kicked them out. He shredded any and all paperwork related to their marriage and got his name removed from most of the credit card debt and loans they had incurred together. In the end, his devious plot worked! His ex-wife received absolutely nothing in the final divorce court order because there was nothing left! Neither she nor her attorneys could make heads or tails of the financial tsunami created by her ex-husband.
False Allegations – In a move designed to gain the upper hand in the divorce court battle or child custody feud, some spouses will resort to filing false and unfounded allegations. This includes false allegations of domestic violence, child abuse and sexual molestation. Once a spouse is falsely accused, their life is put under the proverbial microscope of intrusive scrutiny. They are automatically assumed guilty until they prove their innocence beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, and even then, it is virtually impossible for them to restore their tarnished name. The spouses who employ this revolting tactic, know the stakes very well. They intend to hurt their spouse in the worst possible way, including having them falsely incarcerated! They will do whatever it takes to win the divorce battle!
Abuse and Domestic Violence - The stress of a failing marriage inflames some spouses to retaliate in an unorthodox manner. They resort to committing abuse and violence. Their bitterness causes them to wield the weapons of abuse and domestic violence against their spouses, children and family members, and against the opposite sex. These men and women literally become human ticking time bombs.
Generational Curse - It goes without saying that divorce tears apart the fundamental basis of a child’s security: having both their father and their mother in their life. When a child becomes a victim of divorce, oftentimes, they take on the generational curse of divorce themselves. They in turn pass this curse on to their children. In some families the curse of divorce runs four and five or more generations deep. If you searched his or her family lineage, you will find no one who has had a stable marriage, or who knows what a healthy marriage looks like.
Child Abduction - Parental child abduction is a particularly heinous sin that surfaces in some divorce cases. It involves the wrongful removal or retention of a child by one parent in breach of the rights of the child to have contact, on a regular basis, with both parents. The parental abductor harms their children psychologically. They unwittingly destroy their child’s sense of trust and set them up to be a spiritually, socially and emotionally dysfunctional adult.
Patricia Hoff, the Legal Director for the Parental Abduction Training and Dissemination Project, explains: “Abducted children suffer emotionally and sometimes physically at the hands of abductor-parents. Many children are told the other parent is dead or no longer loves them. Uprooted from family and friends, abducted children often are given new names by their abductor-parents and instructed not to reveal their real names or where they lived before.” (Hoff, 1997).
Parental Alienation Syndrome - Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is when hurt and embittered parents poison their children against their spouses. These parents barrage their adolescents, teenagers and adult children with a mixture of lies, false allegations and constant criticisms. Their intent? To persuade their child to hate or despise their other parent.
Parentification of Children – Some parents spin into an emotional downward spiral during or after their marital rupture. Emotionally, they become incapable of dealing with the realities of their divorce. When that happens, the parents expect, and in many cases, demand that their children behave as adults. The parent-child relationship is annulled and is replaced with a psychologically damaging (child replaces parent) relationship. The children are forced to take care of their moms or dads. They become the primary caretakers of their siblings and usually run the households. They provide their parents with a false sense of emotional security. Some parents use their children to meet their need for intimacy. Parents sleep with their children, (not sexually) just to have a shoulder to cry on, to have someone to hold and someone to talk to. They talk to their children about their problems and issues, sharing with them details that children should be shielded from. In turn, these children don’t get a chance to properly develop emotionally, and usually become dysfunctional marriage partners.
Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy – Some divorced parents have severe emotional and psychological meltdowns. Their instability causes them to use bizarre tactics to receive sympathy, leniency, nurturing, and to gain attention that they would not otherwise receive. Their bizarre tactics include: (a) self-inducing illnesses (b) faking sicknesses (c) faking injuries, and (d) fabricating injuries. They commit these acts against themselves and against their children. Their objective is not to seek external or monetary gains. As I stated previously, they are looking for attention, sympathy, to be nurtured and to receive leniency. Some of these men and women commit these acts as a last ditch effort to win back their ex-spouse.
Spousal Homicide – The divorce attorney’s mantra is: “Divorce is war!” In this epic war, there are times when one of the spouses sees the weapon of homicide as the only way to resolve or dissolve their marital conflict. For example, we will never know what was going through the mind of Matthew Bass in Edwardsville, Kansas. Police reports and court records paint an eerie picture of a man who refused to let his marriage end on any other terms but his own. On April 3, 2004, in the wee hours of the morning, police say that Matthew Bass stalked, ambushed and then killed his ex-wife and the man with whom she was living. Matthew later committed suicide.
In April of 2003, Tacoma Police Chief David Brame murdered his soon to be ex-wife in broad daylight. The two were in the middle of a contentious divorce. Family members of Brame showed evidence of how his wife filed false allegations and used other underhanded tactics in order to win the divorce war. It seems as though David had enough. The couple’s children were sitting in the vehicle that his wife was driving. At some point, Chief Brame put the children in his car, then went back to his wife’s car, shot her and turned the gun on himself. He committed this brutal act as the couple’s two small children looked on. Unfortunately, in spousal homicide cases, the children are very likely to witness the murder of their parent.
The Ripple Effect Without a question divorce carries with it terrible emotional, social, physical, psychological and financial consequences. More and more, the ripple effect of divorce is felt in subsequent generations. The 13 Deadly Sins of Divorce affects not only the spouses but also their children and their children’s children… if you are presently going through a divorce or contemplating one, I admonish you - do not commit any of these thirteen deadly sins! Do not attempt to alienate your children from their other parent no matter how much you may despise your spouse. Do not reduce yourself to using your child as a pawn. Both parents should agree to shield their child from the immense tensions associated with obtaining a divorce.
That means do not drag your child into your divorce court proceedings. To do so means you may very well be planting the destructive seeds of hatred, hostility and vengeance in their fertile minds and pliable hearts. Once these seeds germinate, you have set them on a sure collision course with psychological, emotional and social disorder. Do not violate your conscience by filing false charges of any kind. If an attorney suggests that you use any of these 13 Deadly Sins as a means to gain the upper hand in your divorce proceedings, do not follow their advice.
And for your sake, do not become bitter. I consistently receive calls from embittered spouses, both male and female. Some of the vengeful things they say they intend on doing to their spouse would cause your heart to tremor. One man thoroughly resented how his soon to be ex-wife was treating him. She had a shrewd bulldog divorce attorney who had succeeded at stripping his children out of his life. Faced with the fact that he may never see them again, this man was intent on killing his wife as a means to end their torturous divorce court battle. His words to me were, “She’s taken my children and everything I’ve worked hard for, I don’t care about going to jail… she’s already ruined my life.”
Was there any rhyme or reason to his murderous thoughts? Logically, the answer is no! But in the divorce court battlefield, logical and sane decisions are not the norm. In this highly polarized war torn battlefield, the emotions consistently run on extremely volatile and inflammable high-octane fuel. One spark is all it takes to ignite, detonate or launch the weapons of mass destruction such as false allegations, child abduction, the scorched earth policy, abuse, domestic violence or spousal murder.
It is an undeniable fact - divorce is stressful, painful and harmful, but it does not mean the end of your life. With God’s help, you can regroup, recover and move on. Do these deadly thirteen sins mean that you should stay in a harmful, abusive or violent marriage? A thousand times NO! If you have found yourself booby trapped in an abusive, violent or harmful marriage, to be blunt, getting out may be your only recourse to regaining your sanity, physical safety and peace of mind. I pray that you seek proper godly counsel and make the right decision.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
but when anyone says it’s God’s punishment that a person catches a disease then they are callous.
Archie, you better check your glasses bud. I never said that. Have no idea where you got that. Oh…from what 72john said probably. Maybe if you are going to criticize me you ought to read MY posts instead of his.
Oh please - is there ANYONE here who DOESN’T think that Chuck believes gay people get AIDS because they deserve it? What has he EVER said to make ANYONE think he has an ounce of real human compassion in his body?
By Renee
April 17, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
Justin, oh Justin….
By GOB
April 17, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
Justin - Links, man, links!
By Jack
April 17, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
Billy. So just because someone leaves over 10 million dollars when they die that gives the gov’t the right to half? BTW it is not 10 million.
By RF
April 17, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
ZZZZZZZZZZ,zzzzz……what the?? OH, must have fallen asleep at my desk trying to read all the copy and paste.
Man, we’ve sure beaten some dead horses here today. According to my list of usual topics, there’s not much left, and it’s only Monday—can’t wait to see what tomorrow brings.
By Justin
April 17, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me,
It has been two years. Every time I settle into my life and forget about the past, she does something to upset my karma. She is pure evil.
By lozen
April 17, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Justin, I agree! I would just tweak it a tiny bit:
If I could offer a young (wo)man one piece of sage advice, it would be this: Don’t get married.
By The72John
April 17, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Justin, for the LOVE of GOD, STFU!
Don’t you know how to hyperlink?
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
Ditto on the Links(post links), this page is going to be a major nightmare to load come real soon. there is only so much page most computers can handle, (without the heavy and inefficient use of swapping) and we hit that last wednesday.
But at least Justin’s this time are pretty ON_TOPIC LOL
By Jack
April 17, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
Justin. She really did win. You show us everyday. Get revenge by living well.
By RF
April 17, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
Justin- half of evil’s power is us letting it happen. You got to get your karma under your control and learn to let her go. She’s an ex-wife, meaning you’ve got to let her go and find a way to ignore her evil ways. She’ll quit when you stop letting her get to you.
Seriously check on a divorce support group. They could give you a lot more support than we can. You would find it very, very helpful and comforting.
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
Yay, Jesus!
ROFLMBO!!! Hilarious, John.
Umm, seriously though, you know that he’s not a real representative of Jesus, right?
By Tim
April 17, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
hello… been reading all day… great entertainment :)
Jack… I agree with your 3:15 post
By Tim
April 17, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
hello… been reading all day… great entertainment :)
Jack… I agree with your 3:15 post
By Julia
April 17, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Justin-Yes sir…getting $100/week child support…livin’ the good life! Move over Paris Hilton!!! LOL
We’ve gotten your message already. Men good/women evil. Thanks for the information on how we women are out to ruin men. You’re so sweet.
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
2 years, Justin? She even still on your mind? dang. you’d think it was real recent. flush, dude, flush
If I wanted to think about good Christians(once again, from my obvious twisted perspective…LOL) I would probably think of JBM and Julia. and Archie.
By Justin
April 17, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis, If one can’t marry, then they can’t divorce. The divorce industry is big business. It employs a lot of people, extra judges, guardian ad litem, psychiatrists, counselors, plus the states receives federal money for cs they collect.
Jason, I wholeheartedly agree! I wish I knew also…
Julia, until laws and family court is fair. Men should go on a marriage strike and not procreate. Make the world’s oldest profession legal and employ surrogates!
GOB, I will hyperlink
Renee, I know, I know…sweetie, I’m trying…it is hard sometimes, especially with this topic.
lozen, marriage is not a good thing anymore if it ever was…
The72John, loose my hand and gwain
By Billy
April 17, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Jack — No, it’s not ten million. It could be soon, though. It’s two million now, and estates are only taxed on the amount above that number. There are plenty of credits and deductions, and people who have estates of $2 million+ can afford to pay someone to find all the loopholes possible.
BTW — 2010 — Estate Tax is copmletely repealed, temporarily.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Justin - I thought your answer would be 2 weeks not 2 years. Wounds never heal if you keep picking them.
On another note, send the cut and pastes to jbmnatl@yahoo.com. She likes reading material, and she can filter through it and post whats necessary. LOL
By Justin
April 17, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
RF, Jack, she gets to me by using the children. I get angry because she hurts them. I am an adult and can take it. But, she is scarring the children. That is what ticks me off!
By Archie
April 17, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Chuck perhaps it is you who need glasses because as you can see ,I think, I did say anyone, anyone and I did not say you but perhaps you reacted because the shoe fits. Like my friend who uses the Bible to justify his homophobia but ignores verses that say all men are created equal. My friend says things that don’t match the very Bible that he says he bases his beliefs on. I used the word anyone,specifically so that I would include anyone that feels like AIDS is a punishment from God.
A better spinoff to this topic would be how can we improve male-female relationships? I know some bloggers are gay but I can’t speak to that since we don’t have numbers on gay breakups and in addition I am a heterosexual. Male-female relationships are not going well and maybe they need to be redefined. I don’t know thus the reason for the question. I am still amazed at some of the answers I got last week but I was impressed with JBM’s honesty about women.
By kimberly
April 17, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Justin, why did you choose to marry and reproduce with “pure evil?” Seriously. What was the primary motivation? Maybe by exploring your errors in judgment, you can help others here.
By Monica
April 17, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
RF, Kimberly, et al… For those discussing the conspiracies within pharmaceutical companies, may I recommend a great book, Fatal Healing. It’s by a local budding author whose setting is a powerful pharmacy research corporation that creates the SARS virus because it has already created a cure for the disease. Entirely fictonal, of course. And much more interesting than this week’s blog topic.[http://highergroundstudios.com/shopping/productinfo.php?productsid=66&osCsid=e8a19bb20a6b9161fa34daf42c532cae]
By Julia
April 17, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Thank you Chilao!
Justin, I’m sorry if I came across the wrong way before. You have a right to your anger certainly. I’ve been burned too. But I’ve moved on and I don’t harp on my injustices with the court system. (Though I was angry for awhile.) I still don’t judge all men in the world by one man who did me wrong.
By Archie
April 17, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Chuck perhaps it is you who need glasses because as you can see ,I think, I did say anyone, anyone and I did not say you but perhaps you reacted because the shoe fits. Like my friend who uses the Bible to justify his homophobia but ignores verses that say all men are created equal. My friend says things that don’t match the very Bible that he says he bases his beliefs on. I used the word anyone,specifically so that I would include anyone that feels like AIDS is a punishment from God.
A better spinoff to this topic would be how can we improve male-female relationships? I know some bloggers are gay but I can’t speak to that since we don’t have numbers on gay breakups and in addition I am a heterosexual. Male-female relationships are not going well and maybe they need to be redefined. I don’t know thus the reason for the question. I am still amazed at some of the answers I got last week but I was impressed with JBM’s honesty about women.
By Renee
April 17, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - In Justin’s defense, I’m sure she didn’t start out “pure evil” or else I’m sure he would have never gotten with her (I think, anyway).
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, I refer you to Justin’s 2:20 where he (via cut-n-paste, albeit) explained that women don’t start out as evil, and in most cases, they are not evil. Divorce can bring out the worst in some people, and I think that’s what Justin’s saying happened to him.
By Monica
April 17, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
Sorry, maybe it will link this time…
http://highergroundstudios.com/shopping/productinfo.php?productsid=66&osCsid=e8a19bb20a6b9161fa34daf42c532cae
By RF
April 17, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
Monica- read that! Pretty darn good, and certainly makes you think, doesn’t it?
Gotta go to a mega-meeting. Have a good evening all!
By kimberly
April 17, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Justin, was she THAT pretty? Like, prettiest-girl-you-ever-met pretty, or prettiest-girl-that-would-speak-to-you pretty?
Thanks, Monica. I’ll check it out. People like to snicker at “conspiracy theorists” but what motivates big corporate executives besides profit? And what profit is there in curing what can be milked for decades per person? The math isn’t that complicated on this one.
By lozen
April 17, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Justin, Art lemasters is full of sh**!
Why have so many supposedly conservative ministers and socio-political writers sermonized exclusively on the problem of husbands abandoning or being “absent” from their wives and children. Duh! Maybe because this is the much, much, much bigger problem!
“Think about it. Women are learning about issues of marriage and dealing with husbands through Women’s Studies courses (feminist and humanist propaganda), local “battered women’s shelters” (which disseminate more of the same in each community) and many other kinds of organizations that teach women to be independent—independent from husbands.”
I done tole you, we gotta get those women out of them colleges where they are learning all that humanist, feminist propaganda. Oh, and damn them battered women shelters too; close em down. Women weren’t treated so bad back when they shut up when we said “Shut up!”
Justin, No. 1 - Nobody is going to read all that crap esp. after seeing by reading the paragraph above where he’s coming from. No. 2 - I seriously doubt you’ve been as mistreated as you think for no good reason.
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
Awww, thanks Archie!
By Justin
April 17, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Chilao, Only because she won’t move on…she is constantly in my Kool-aid!
Julia, I didn’t say all women are bad, nor all men good. Marriage gives every married woman a loaded gun. Whether she chooses to use it is up to her, but she still has one. J just chose not to shoot it.
www.blackcommentator.com/75/75frblack_families.html
www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/local/14238869.htm
www.deltabravo.net/custody/beatdead.php
By kimberly
April 17, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
I appreciate y’all giving Justin the benefit of the doubt on the “pure evil” thing, but that isn’t going to help him. I’ve had some bad relationships, and I can ALWAYS look back and see warning signs I ignored as well as misplaced motivations on my part. I got marred for the “wrong reasons” while ignoring blaring red flags. When I came to understand those, I was able to move forward while not repeating the same mistakes. (Always willing to make new ones! Haha!) Justin either ignored a gut feeling that something wasn’t right, or he married for the wrong reasons, or he had totally unrealistic expectations. Help this nice young man comprehend HIS part in this mistake, and you’ll help him for a lifetime! {:->
By Mara
April 17, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
Archie - my male/female relationships are doing just fine, thanks. But then, I bided my time until I was mature enough to know who I was before committing myself to marriage. I knew what I wanted in a man and why. I also knew what I was prepared to offer and what things I would never agree to. And my husband and I talked seriously about money, children, expectations, and what we wanted from marriage before we wed.
Perhaps it the differences in expectations that cause many marriages to fail. It seems to me that a great many men still expect they’ll be marrying Molly Homemaker, disregarding the reality that their intended has a thriving career of her own. On the other hand, I’m sure that there’re women who marry thinking that they will be Molly Homemaker while their intended looks forward to a comfortable 2-income future…
By Renee
April 17, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Granted Kimberly, but it takes making a mistake to learn from your mistakes. Therefore, I think your argument would hold true if he had a pattern of picking the wrong person. I would venture to say that he could use this experience to assist him in picking the right girl next time, or to know what to look for when presented with a relationship potential. This maybe his first learning experience, therefore explaining the large amount of hurt he expresses. Of course, I don’t know for sure and you don’t know, but that would be my deduction, and if I’m wrong, I’m sure he will set me straight.
By lozen
April 17, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
ways to improve male-female relationships:
men need to stop thinking the most important thing is how beautiful and sexy she is and think about character.
women need to stop thinking the most important thing is how cute and sexy he is and think about character.
men and women should learn the difference between lust and love.
little boys should put their hands over their ears when their dads start talking like, “Women! Can’t live with em and can’t live without em! Dumb women! They just never make sense! Women! They just want your money. You can’t trust a one of them!”
little girls should put their hands over their ears when their mothers start talking like, “Men! They are just like having another kid. They act like babies. They never grow up. You can’t trust a one of them.”
Marriage needs to be illegal until the age of 35!
By Justin
April 17, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Julia, no problem…I understand.
Kimberly, I have found many women know how to fake and be the woman they think you want in order to get what they want…marriage and children. She was very good at faking and then I saw a totally different person after marriage.
Renee, if I had one inkling of how she really is…I would’ve walked away before the wedding.
Kimberly, yes, she was attractive, well-educated and comes from a Christian family. I must say her family is sane but she has some mental issues.
Archie, I think women and men have a hard time trusting each other now, especially in the Black community. I wouldn’t know where to begin to bring men and women back together except one area. Make the divorce laws equitable and fair. Then, work on why relationships fail…
By Tim
April 17, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
daaaang… I gotta wait until I’m 35 to get the free blender??? Shoot!
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
I’m sure that there’re women who marry thinking that they will be Molly Homemaker while their intended looks forward to a comfortable 2-income future…
Mara, you know my second ex? LMAO
so you meet a woman that seems to have it all together, until you learn she really would rather not work, and if it keeps you(husband) in the poorhouse, oh well, ain’t love grand LOL and to think with Shaunt’s recommended counseling, I could be even more broke now than I was then.
Since that was not in MY plans, why she ex2. Of course she did not like me to call it a con she ran, but that was exactly how I looked at it… LOL
By Just Being Me
April 17, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, you sound as though you and only you have the one and only answer for Justin. Just because you can look back and see warning signs doesn’t mean that everyone can.
To say that he had to have fit into one of three categories (ignored warning signs, married for the wrong reasons, or had unrealistic expectations) is somewhere between close-minded and judgmental, IMHO. How do you know she didn’t have an experience that caused her to become violent when there were no previous warning signs? How do you know she didn’t go through some sort of mid-life crisis that caused her to cheat on him? How do you know she didn’t suffer from post-partum depression so seriously that it completely sapped her of all the personality he fell in love with? How do you know she didn’t just turn into a jerk over a period of time?
Of course it’s possible that he’s to blame, but it is equally possible - and worth considering - that she’s to blame.
Furthermore, I don’t really think it’s realistic to expect us (any of us here) to “help him comprehend his part in the mistake.” First off, maybe there was no mistake. Maybe they just grew apart, and as they began to divide assets, she became bitter. Secondly, how on earth can we possibly know enough about his situation to help him comprehend his part on a friggin blog? This isn’t an hour long episode of Dr. Phil, this is a blog. We’re here to discuss issues that affect the masses, and although we get off-track from time to time, we rarely get deep into one person’s life and/or relationship. The most we can do is what’s already been done, refer him to some professionals that can really help him.
By Archie
April 17, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Thanks Mara for responding. I spun off because if we’re going to curtail something we may as well start before things go downhill. Ladies, why don’t some of y’all cook? Everybody has to eat so why is it hard for some of y’all to cook for the entire family not just yourself? Women are very different and certainly have more choices but the house still has to be kept and I wonder why some women just struggle so much with housework. Obviously not every guy has a complaint but if we are going to curtail divorce why not deal with consistent complaints from both sides. We hear so much of the complaints from the woman’s side and it is because of that —that I don’t understand why today’s ladies don’t seem to keep up the housework. Of course as detailed several times we,men, have alot of problems but there has to be some ideas on how to improve our relationships. I read somewhere that the average wedding costs over 32,000 dollars, that’s a lot of money to turn around and be very cold with your spouse or non-caring with that spouse the minute some unpleasantries come up. I think if we work harder at male-female relationships topics like this will be easier to deal with. Ladies help me out. Gentleman chime in too.
By Tim
April 17, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
daaaang… I gotta wait till I’m 35 to get the free blender??? shoot!!!
By Justin
April 17, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
My ex was very career-oriented, but after the children were born, she wanted to stay home. I told her we have to make plans for her to be stay at home mom. It isn’t something you do on a whim. There must be a financial plan. Then, after going back to work, she accuses me of not supporting her career and she wants to get another master’s degree. I told her to go for it. Then, she accuses me of not wanting her to stay at home. I couldn’t win. It is my fault for marrying the wrong person and not seeing the signs before the children were born. I take responsibility for that.
Renee, you are correct. I have never been through anything like this before. I apologize again.
lozen, I agree. Marriage should be postponed until a certain age and sufficient testing…hehehe
By Chilao
April 17, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
Marriage needs to be illegal until the age of 35!
So are we back to my suggestion a few weeks ago, during the put a waiting period on divorce legal action week, that people not be allowed to marry until they have been together 5 years, and adding, get 20 witnesses to state they have a nice stable relationship, no abuse, etc etc. LOL
By Justin
April 17, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me,
I thought I made a good selection and did things the right way. Before I married, I owned my own home, two vehicles, a motorcycle, lots of money in the bank and a great career. I respected women. She didn’t have a lot of assets but I don’t look at people for what they own but their character. She definitely fooled me. I got her her first job position here.
Now, she is living in a home which was mainly paid for by my assets and equity in my first home, has a six figure salary, has control of the children, most of the marital assets, plus 23% of my pre-tax income in cs. And, she is still not satisfied until she ruins me. That seems to be her goal. And no, I didn’t cheat. I just got tired of having her treat me like a child and disrespect me. Some women feel they have to control their man/train their man to have a relationship.
By Justin
April 17, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
I knew things were going wrong when she wanted to trade in the engagement ring I gave her for a larger stone. This was after the wedding…she wanted to better her friends… you know, my stone is bigger than your stone issue…
And, because her ex-boyfriend did her wrong, she thought I was going to do the same. She eventually drove me away. It got to the point where I hated going home.
By Justin
April 17, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
I read an article some time ago about some women think the talents that make them successful in their career will not necessarily make them successful in their marriage/relationship. They need to focus on different things to make a relationship successful.
As I stated before, I can move on but when you have someone constantly needling you using the children, it wears on you. I don’t care if she hates me, just don’t use my children to get back at me. I can take it, they can’t.
By kimberly
April 17, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
JBM, wow… is this “kimberly is a such a b—-h day” and i forgot to wear the t-shirt? Obviously he is suffering, and I was just trying to help. Do I know the whole story? No, of course not. I was trying to get him to elaborate and see something beyond “She’s evil!” which is where he seemed to be stuck. Actually this blog IS a Dr. Phil substitute for some of us. See, he acknowledged not seeing some signs. That’s progress, IMO! Yay, Justin! I have hope that he can work through his anger. Are you trying to tell me what I’m allowed talk about? Heh….
By Justin
April 17, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
Archie, You are right in the spending on the wedding. It is all a big show! Also, men are expected to do the yard work and then expected to help with the housework. Whatever happened to team work. If I help with the housework, I very well expect some help with the work in the yard!
And, please learn to cook something other than spaghetti! Yes, I know how to cook!
By Iamjustrealsorryforallusporemen
April 17, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
We gotta stop these women from learnin’ how to be independent in them evil women’s studies classes and battered shelters. Back to the good ole days when a man could knock his wife around a little bitty bit when she needed it. Back to good ole family values when women knew their place and men were the king of the castle. Women are ruining the family! Hell, they’re ruining the country. They’re using birth control, having sex all over the place, getting educamated, makin’ their own money, paying fer their own Mercedeeeees and divorcin’ their good, faithful, loving husbands. They think nuthin’ of just havin’ a kid without even havin’ a daddy for it! The more educamation they git, the harder it is to fool em anymore. When you tell em they’re b*** now they just smile, and then they file! When you tell em this is six inches ____, they studied algebra dude, they don’t believe that anymore.
By kimberly
April 17, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
Justin, it hurts when you know you did the right and honorable thing by your mate, and they screw you over anyway. I can relate. I used to pray a LOT in those days. “God please help me be a good wife and make this right.” (I finally realized I couldn’t make it right when he was an angry drunk, screwing a teenager and trying to make me feel like nothing.) Now, after some years, knowing that I did the right thing even though he didn’t does actually make me feel better. It’s my reflection I see in the mirror, not his. Using the kids against you is wrong, and that anger is not likely to subside until that behavior stops. Be brave, and look for ways to counter that behavior to lessen it’s impact on you and your children. A professional might be of some use there. Good luck!
By lozen
April 17, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Archie, “Ladies, why don’t some of y’all cook? Everybody has to eat so why is it hard for some of y’all to cook for the entire family not just yourself? Women are very different and certainly have more choices but the house still has to be kept and I wonder why some women just struggle so much with housework.”
I know you couldn’t be speaking of the ladies I work with who are in the office and car about nine or ten hours a day, (just like their husbands) and then for some reason are expected to go home and do all the cooking and all the cleaning for the family with no help from the husbands!
By Mara
April 18, 2006 07:26 AM | Link to this
well said, lozen. Well said.
Archie, this is exactly what I was talking about regarding some men still expecting cookin’, cleanin’, and washin’ from their mate, regardless of whether she, too, works a full day. There’re a lot of us that truly have bought into the “equal partnership” theory of marriage. You know, the idea that there is no job that’s a “womans job” nor any that’re “mens jobs”? Of course, there are certain things that fall naturally. I always clean the cat box because I had the cat when we got married and it just seemed like it’d be my responsibility. He does most of the yard work, not because I won’t but because he doesn’t like me playing with “his” tools. (he lets me drive the lawnmover…sometimes LOL!)
The idea that it’s the womans responsibility to keep the house up and cook for the family despite working full time is rediculous. If a man marries expecting to get a maid, cook, lover, and second-income provider…he’s likely to be as disappointed in his mate as she will be with the marriage.
By candide
April 18, 2006 07:28 AM | Link to this
Defend traditional marriage! Incest, physical abuse, mental abuse, religious indoctrination, hypocrisy, stupidity.
By Jack
April 18, 2006 07:59 AM | Link to this
Wow. I leave a little early and miss a lot of great stuff.
Exactly what is wrong with traditional marriage?
By Bruce
April 18, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this
Better question is what is wrong with candide? Hey Kimberly do you think we could help him too?
By chuck
April 18, 2006 08:06 AM | Link to this
Archie, maybe you not only need glasses, but a test for early onset of Alzheimer’s…another devestating disease that gets less funding than AIDS. Your exact words were:
Chuck you’re callous and un-christian like because you appear to hate the sinner and the sin and really only the sin of your choosing. As many have already said people have contracted the AIDS disease inspite of their behavior not just because of their behavior. In the post that I was referencing you referred to behavior. Of course everyone engaging in sexual behavior should be aware of diseases period but when anyone says it’s God’s punishment that a person catches a disease then they are callous.
So you refer to me as “callous” then say that “anyone” who says blablabla is callous, but it wasn’t referring to me. Now you can try to WEASEL if you want to. That is certainly your right to say whatever you want to say, but it is disengenuous at best to say that the comment was NOT referring to me. At its worst, it was an outright LIE. Again I ask “When did I say that?”
By Bruce
April 18, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this
Better question is what is wrong with candide? Hey Kimberly do you think we could help him too?
By Jack
April 18, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this
You stirred it up good yesterday Chuck.
By Nikita
April 18, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this
Justin, I know you had a bad situation, but it continues to pain me that you seem to project that experience upon all women.
In my house, I (the woman) support the both of us, both of whom are in college as well. I also cook and shop (no small task, since it takes several hours of time & energy each week) and do the lawn & garden and some limited cleaning — mostly in the kitchen. I don’t clean in general, however. And if the house gets too messy, I hire a maid. ‘Cause, honestly, I am entirely too busy and life is entirely too short for me to spend it doing things I hate, regardless of whether society considers them to be my job or not.
Oh, and the only cars we own are the ones I pay for.
By chuck
April 18, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
Like the song says Jack, “Let’s give ‘em something to talk about”.
By chuck
April 18, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
Like the song says Jack, “Let’s give ‘em something to talk about”.
By chuck
April 18, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this
OH, OH, OH, and me too Kimmie? I’m a callous and un Christian-like homophobic scum of the earth, who hates children, the poor, and gay people. Oh yeah, and I beat my wife and children and kick the dogs. Did that about cover it john?
By Mara
April 18, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this
Jack, there’s nothing wrong with “traditional” marriage, per se. The problems arise when one person expects traditional gender roles and the other expects that responsibilities will be shared. If both parties agree that this is the kind of relationship they want, fine. Most women I know would be shocked if their intended expected them to shoulder all (or even most…)of the domestic responsibility. See, the way it appears to me is that a lot of men are still expecting to marry June Cleaver. Unfortunately for them, June is a fictitious stereotype that most women have long since grown out of.
By Monica
April 18, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
Mara, Good 4:03 post yesterday. My husband and I also discussed those matters before we were married. We both decided that children were great, but if we didn’t have any, then that was okay too. Being a Christian and going to church are very important to me, and I didn’t date men who didn’t go to church: not because I am self-righteous or holier-than-thou, but I just didn’t see the point in wasting time (mine or his) with someone who had a different value system than I did (though I was accused of being a self-righteous b** once!). And, like you, I didn’t start “looking” for a husband until I was comfortable with myself first. I hate that Jerry Maguire “You complete me” crap! Who needs anyone else to make you a complete person? If you’re not happy with yourself, you won’t be happy with anyone else. That’s my Dr. Phil philosophy contribution for the day. :)
By Julia
April 18, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
I’ll gladly be June Cleaver as long as I don’t have to hold a 9 hour job outside the home at the same time. I’ll gladly stop working and stay home to be with my son and watch him grow up. The housework will be done, dinners ready at 5:30, etc.
But if I have to continue to work just as my husband does then he’s going to have to share the household chores and cooking. You know-equality-I’ll cook/you do dishes,etc.
By Julia
April 18, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
For the record, being a single mom I’m already doing all of that by myself including the upkeep of a house and yard. So if/when I get married I certainly expect a little help in a few areas. (But honestly right now I’d settle for the extra income. Every time I get ahead it seems something else at the house breaks. Yesterday it was the garage door. Last week it was the A/C.)
By Jack
April 18, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
The Mrs. and I shared everything. Cooking, cleaning, diapers ETC. (plus my sun rises and sets for her) That is the secret to staying married.
By Julia
April 18, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this
Did not mean to make it sound like I’d marry just anybody for the added income. LOL
I just meant that right now it’s a struggle-financially.
By Monica
April 18, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this
Julia, I don’t know how you do it! My husband is a high school coach, so I get a small taste of single parenthood during ball season, but there is still no comparison. It’s hard enough working full time and being a mom when there are two of you; I can’t imagine going solo. You’re my hero!
By Renee
April 18, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this
I am quite happy with myself, but my partner completes me.
Traditional marriage is fine, as long as both parties are okay with it. I have no problem cooking, cleaning, or anything else.
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
Okay, Kimberly. Since you seem content to believe that anything I say to you is an attack, how about I only address you when I agree with you.
Unlike your post, there was absolutely no sarcasm in mine, there was no venom, no anger, nothing that looked like an attack - it was just me expressing my disagreement with what you said. But, this isn’t the first time you thought I was jumping down your throat when I was doing nothing of the like.
So, like I said, I’ll limit my comments to “Right on, Kimberly!!!” when addressing you.
By Karen L. Sacandy
April 18, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
I handle divorces in my law practice. Justin’s comments are 85% right on. The law favors the mother in almost every circumstance. This is changing slightly, but so slowly as to be useless. The rest of what I have read here is sophmoric tripe, not worth the time it took to type.
For all of you glib writers: human beings are not the unsocial creatures you wish them to be. But I won’t waste my breathe on swine.
It saddens me to see before me the explanation of why Americans are not having children, while illegal immigrants are. Americans will die off, while foreigners will have the benefit of our ancestors’ blood. Our laws favor those not in our system. Those in it are trapped and bludgeoned.
Men have done the math, and finished the calculations. They know that marriage law as currently applied, is applied with bludgeon force against them. It is only the very bravest or most foolish of young men that now marry.
And all of your glib comments won’t erase the facts of the destroyed lives. Divorce is the destruction of the deepest ties human beings have. It is the destruction of entire plans for life, and ruins all the careful calculations which people make to provide for their future, and their children’s future.
While you here are glib and flip, there are others trying to figure out how to prevent the carnage of destruction and heartache divorce brings. Justin gets it. The rest of you are just voyeurs. Without serious people like Justin, this problem will not be solved, and more innocent people will be destroyed, while the guilty will walk away with all the pot, and smile at how cleverly they gamed the system.
By Bruce
April 18, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this
The way I look at it is, it is my home too. I help dirty, I help clean. Do we split duties 50/50, nope. But I woudl not trust her to hang a picture but she MUST tell me when i have it in the right place.
By Hadden Knough
April 18, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
All I know is that yesterday we went with our college age son to a pizza joint for lunch. It was one of those local pseudo-hippydippy outfits, in fact there was bunch of flower children straight out of the ’60s - honest to God - squinting and shielding their eyes in the midday sun as they climbed out of of their hippymobile. They looked really, really, really hungry.
Anyway, my son orders a Greek side-salad along with his pizza, only he doesn’t want onions or olives or anything but lettuce, feta cheese, and dressing. The counter-culture kid who was taking our order just looked at him for few seconds and then suggested it would be smarter and cheaper in the long run to get a regular side-salad and add feta cheese instead of trying to make a Greek salad into something it’s not.
So, before you jump into anything with Diane’s, “How we define marriage is as fluid and liberating as our imagination”, bull sh## ringing in your ears, remember the dreadlocked young retro-revolutionary and his side-salad philosphy, and perhaps in the long run you won’t have a need for a no-fault divorce.
Maybe hippies aren’t so bad after all.
By Bruce
April 18, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
The way I look at it is, it is my home too. I help dirty, I help clean. Do we split duties 50/50, nope. But I woudl not trust her to hang a picture but she MUST tell me when i have it in the right place.
By Mara
April 18, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
Justin @10:38 yesterday - “You would be amazed at how many women leave a marriage because the man doesn’t communicate the same as they do in a marriage. Most women tend to want to talk about everything extensively. Most men tend to stick to the facts and say what they need to say.”
I think perhaps I’ve uncovered at least one thing that contributed to Justins unhappy marriage. The feeling I got from this post was that his ex kept trying to talk to him (perhaps about feeling isolated when she was home alone with the kids or feeling overwhelmed when she went back to school?) and Justin got tired of her constant yammering and just wished she’d STFU. If this was the situation, I don’t find it surprising at all that their marriage broke up. Nobody likes to feel like they aren’t being heard, or their feelings don’t matter.
I could be wrong, but it looks like Justin has a real problem with communication.
By Nikita
April 18, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
Thanks, Karen, for enlightening all us troglodytes who don’t believe that women are evil or designed to dsteal men’s money.
As to traditional marriage — nothing’s wrong with them, but they don’t work for me. What’s wrong is compelling people to enter into them when they don’t fit the participants.
By Justin
April 18, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
Kimberly, I know what you mean. It seems nice people always get caught up with a mean partner. I try to do the right thing, because I alone have to answer for how I treat others. You are right, we have to look in the mirror and be happy with what we see. Hopefully, one day, my girls will know how much I loved them and supported them. And, hopefully, they will know their mother’s role in everything and her tricks. And, she calls herself a Christian. I am not judging her but revenge is the thing on her mind, for how dare I think she isn’t perfect because she thinks she can do no wrong.
Nikita, I don’t think all women are bad. However, the family law courts do give women the upper hand. A father can be a saint and it will still be a battle to even get joint custody of his children. Right now, I am trying to figure out what to do with my children for the summer. She will still receive cs for the time I have the children. I can’t afford camp. People tell me to fight her in court but that requires money I don’t have. She is so selfish, she won’t spend the cs money she will receive when she doesn’t have the children on their camp.
By Justin
April 18, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
Mara, I communicate but I don’t communicate well when the other person is yelling. At that point, I will walk away. I can’t stand nagging.
We went to counseling and even the counselors said we shouldn’t be married. She tried to find a counselor who agreed with her and that we should stay together. We were just too different. She grew up in a household where her mother ruled her father. I grew up in a traditional household. That was the main problem.
Karen knows that the laws favor women. If you don’t believe it, sit in a family law courtroom for a day and see for yourself. See how the judges dismiss the man’s witnesses but yet hears the woman’s witnesses. See the real reason men shouldn’t marry.
By The72John
April 18, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
OH, OH, OH, and me too Kimmie? I’m a callous and un Christian-like homophobic scum of the earth, who hates children, the poor, and gay people. Oh yeah, and I beat my wife and children and kick the dogs. Did that about cover it john?
Yep, that about covers it. I would say this sums up the totality of what it means to be Chuck. Anyone disagree?
By chuck
April 18, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Not to change the subject, if there actually is one, but Julia…I need to apologize to you. I was a little harsh yesterday. When you first showed up on this blog you made a few statements and everybody that usually attacks me, attacked YOU. It was like you turned off a switch and changed your whole persona, to be popular with the crowd. I have a hard time respecting that. I think we ought to be genuine in our Christianity.
I could probably say things in a nicer way, but I don’t really believe in a lot of fluff. For one thing, I type too slow to put all of the little niceties in there, and I don’t have unlimited time to post…usually just between classes or in planning periods or lunch. For another, while I am indeed blunt, I am also on point as far as the Bible goes. The few times that I have been a little mean-spirited, like calling john a moron, have also been done to make specific points about debate or semantics.
I try to make my posts instructive. There are many “lurkers” out there who never post, but read this blog who want to know WHAT the Bible says about these issues. I try to provide that information. The vast majority of my posts have to do with political/social issues that I address from a Biblical perspective if there is one that specifically addresses it and a common sense perspective otherwise. I am decidedly conservative, because having studied scripture for well over 30 years, I am sure those ideals are for the most part Biblical. I don’t agree with everything the Republican party does…in fact, I find myself disagreeing more and more lately, but there is really not a viable alternative.
I believe in the concepts of helping the poor and sick and those that find themselves in hard times, but I don’t find those things to be in the purview of the government but rather, the Church. The Constitution does not give that authority to the federal government just like it doesn’t give them authority over education, abortion, etc. They are usurping powers that by right, belong to the states.
I don’t believe in a namby-pamby, feel good gospel that has no power for changing the world around us. I believe in a HOLY God who loved us enough to give His only Son to die for our sins, yet still holds us accountable for what we do with His Son. His love is beyond our power to comprehend, BUT so is His sense of justice. This God is immoveable and unchangeable. He doesn’t “adapt” who He is because society changes. Sin is still sin. Just as there is a Heaven, there is ALSO a hell. So when you criticize my message, remember that one thing. A watered down faith is useless.
By Jack
April 18, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Karen. Thank you for ripping everyone on the blog. You are sooooooo superior. Got a joke for you. What do you call 100 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean? A good start.
By The72John
April 18, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
To sum up what Chuck say - Inqusition = Good. Love and Compassion = Bad.
That’s basically it. He’s evil. Scum. Trash.
‘Nuff said.
By Archie
April 18, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Thanks ladies for responding. Lozen, I am writing from the perspective of men that do housework. The reason I wrote what I did is because you have men that do yardwork and housework so that’s the motivation behind writing the way I did. Many women of today simply struggle with housework and I don’t think that some ladies understand that being equal means you still have to do something. I don’t think some of the ladies understand that your fellow ladies struggle and this is a constant complaint from today’s men. Even though both male and female put in a full day housework still needs to get done. I am not talking the ladies that do perform equally, I am talking about a growing number that use the “I work fulltime” excuse to not do much around the house. It may not fit anyone here but it does fit some ladies somewhere and I know personally of a man that washed both cars,prepared dinner, and cleaned restrooms at home and that’s not unusual in this day and age. What’s happening with that type of woman?
By Jack
April 18, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
“There are many “lurkers” out there who never post, but read this blog who want to know WHAT the Bible says about these issues.”
Yes indeed. Uh huh. OK. Right.
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
An offensive message is useless, too.
By Monica
April 18, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Archie, are there kids involved in the marriages you describe? If I have a dirty bathroom, a 5-year-old son who wants me to play Candyland with him, and a 2-year-old son who wants me to hold him, guess what I am going to pick? The bathroom can wait!
By chuck
April 18, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
BTW, Julia, case in point…yesterday’s post on AIDS funding. All I did was state a fact that we spend more money on AIDS research in the United States than we do on cancer research and a number of other diseases that affect WAY more people than does AIDS. I didn’t call it a “gay disease”, I didn’t blame anyone, yet it was roundly assumed that I want all homosexuals and little children in Africa to die of AIDS. Many of the people on this blog are so caught up in their sin that all they know how to do is attack.
That is one of the reasons mainsream America votes Republican. They don’t hear any solutions from the left, only ad hominem attacks. When you can’t win the argument on merit, try to win it by smear tactics. That’s what goes on here and you should really try to understand that.
By The72John
April 18, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
spelling seems to be failing me today…”says” and “inquisition”
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
Justin, did you look into a support group, or are you content being angry and resentful?
By RF
April 18, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
good one Jack!! I also like your approach to marriage. People seem to have forgotten the simplicity of a good relationship. I bet the Mrs. probably adores you too, and that’s the way it should be.
By lozen
April 18, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
Karen Sacandy, Wow Karen tell us how you really feel about us your first time posting on the blog. I don’t undeerstand why you wasted your time writing to a bunch of swine but I’m guessing since you’re a lawyer that Justin had to pay you something!
Why shouldn’t mothers be favored by the law? Isn’t it mothers who have the children, and mothers who do 99 percent of the childcare in 99 percent of families?
Do you know that things used to be just the opposite before the early 1900’s and the first wave of the women’s movement. Mothers back then had no claim at all on their children and many women stayed in terrible marriages because they would lose their children if they left. The law back then always favored the father! Funny how things change huh? Aren’t you being a little melodramatic? In my opinion marriage is not by any stretch of the imagination the deepest tie we have. In many societies it has never been viewed as such. Our ties to our children, our siblings, our parents (sometimes) are much deeper and more basic. The friendships I’ve established with women have been much deeper and more fulfilling than my relationship with my husband ever was. The rest of what I have read here is sophmoric tripe, not worth the time it took to type. For all of you glib writers: human beings are not the unsocial creatures you wish them to be. But I won’t waste my breathe on swine.
Oh well goodness, aren’t you the great communicator yourself?
It saddens me to see before me the explanation of why Americans are not having children, while illegal immigrants are. Americans will die off, while foreigners will have the benefit of our ancestors’ blood. Our laws favor those not in our system. Those in it are trapped and bludgeoned. Another jingoist too!
Men have done the math, and finished the calculations. They know that marriage law as currently applied, is applied with bludgeon force against them. It is only the very bravest or most foolish of young men that now marry.
How much did Justin pay you to write this anyway. Heard any good lawyer jokes lately?
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
I am also on point as far as the Bible goes.
except for that little stickler point about changing the 4th Commandment seventh day worship day from the day designated when Moses came down the mountain, and the Jews still have as their worship day, and the common/prevalent Sunday, 1st day of the week on most calendars, as the worship day.
hahahahahahahah
couldn’t resist. LOL
By chuck
April 18, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
JBM, if the truth is offensive then so be it. We can find offense in whatever doesn’t agree with our own pre-conceived ideas. There’s an old bumper sticker out there that says “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”. That’s a fallacy. What it should have said is “God said it, THAT SETTLES IT.” You see, it really doesn’t matter if we believe it or not. God isn’t going to change His mind.
BTW, JBM, I will e-mail you from home if I get a chance tonight. Last night was tax night and I was pretty wrapped up in that. I have a funeral to go to this afternoon so I will be late getting home.
By Tom
April 18, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
The topic of divorce really should begin with the topic of marriage. Marriage has been hurt by “no-fault” divorce. No-fault divorce basically nullifies marriage. Instead of making it easier to get divorced it should be made a little more difficult to get married, i.e. counseling beforehand, setting a time period from the license application to the time you can actually get married, and other possibilities.
Diane Glass shows her contempt for traditional values by mocking Christians taking a stand against immoral behavior with her statement about us being “pig headed in our opposition to gay marriage”. Also, marriage has nothing to do with whether you live in an agrarian society or an industrial one. Do you really think God designed marriage only for farmers???
If we are going to continue with no-fault divorce then we must change the wedding vows. As far as I know the words “til death do us part” are still used. If this is something we mean then divorcing someone means you lied at the beginning and your intentions were really as long as I want to be with you. This is the perfect out for someone who doesn’t really want to stay committed when things aren’t going their way. It is one the most selfish acts a person can do. I know this because I have been through this type of divorce and my ex-wife stated to me that she “wasn’t motivated to work on our relationship” even though I was. She was thinking only of herself instead of anyone else, including our two children. By the way, I have seen various effects of our divorce with our kids that are not great and I know that more than anything in this world they wish we could be together.
Our society has preached the message that you don’t have to be accountable, take responsibility, or suffer any consequences for your actions. What a load of garbage!
Ms. Glass, it is unfortunate that you took the typical road of liberal argument and started with name calling and derogatory statements. I must admit you are right on one count: Religion has not done much to stem the tide. However to say it is the disease is a gross overstatement! And to say that laws must adapt to a changing society tells me you want a society with no foundation to set it’s rules upon! Any society must have a foundation for all it’s laws and that includes some traditions that others may not like.
In closing on this topic I would like to say that my parents marriage was not what I would call a great marriage, maybe not even a good one. However, what I got from it was the lessons of committment, and finding a way to make it work. While my mother may not have been as happy as she would like with the marriage she had she found a way to live with my father and accept him as he is. They were together for 45 years until she died. They have pretty well-adjusted kids for the most part and I am grateful for the lesson of sticking with someone no matter what. Remember the vows: in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, in good times and bad. No-fault divorce makes all that a sham.
By Julia
April 18, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
If I have a dirty bathroom, a 5-year-old son who wants me to play Candyland with him, and a 2-year-old son who wants me to hold him, guess what I am going to pick? The bathroom can wait!
Monica-AMEN to that one!
By Jack
April 18, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
Gonna wait up for that e-mail JBM?
By The72John
April 18, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Many of the people on this blog are so caught up in their sin that all they know how to do is attack
That is one of the reasons mainsream America votes Republican. They don’t hear any solutions from the left, only ad hominem attacks. When you can’t win the argument on merit, try to win it by smear tactics. That’s what goes on here and you should really try to understand that
Your self-righteousness and arrogance increases with every post, Chuck. We are so caught up in our sin? You have no right whatsoever to criticize us for anything. You, despite what you think, are not God.
Let’s be honest about yesterday’s discussion, at least as honest as someone as bound up in willful ignorance and dogma as you are can be.
No one else on this blog considers medical funding to be an either-or proposition. It is a logical fallacy to suggest that the amount of funding for one illness is in any way related to the funding of another. Your suggestion that WE politicized the debate is laughable, as YOU were the ONLY person involved who in any way tried to make it seem as if AIDS funding has political motivation.
You BEGAN your diatribe with snide insinuations about AIDS and dismissed it as being merely caused by “behavior”, and then have the gall to act affronted when other people call you on it.
It is even more laughable that you suggest that it is the liberal side of the fence indulging in ad hominem attacks. The substance of every major Conservative demagogue on the airwaves is nothing BUT ad hominem, strawman, horse-laugh, and various other fallacies. You and your kind have turned derision and inuendo into an art form.
Your attempt to play the superior intellect and wounded victim is pitiful, and anyone who has read this blog for more than a week knows it. You know it. I know it. And rest assured, Chuck, Julia knows it, too.
By RF
April 18, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
When you can’t win the argument on merit, try to win it by smear tactics. That’s what goes on here and you should really try to understand that.
chuck- I’ll give you the fact that John jumps all in your stuff every day here, but I think his attitude hardly applies to the rest. You give it as good as you get it from all the rest of us. We argue, debate, resort to name-calling, and then come back the next day for more, and noone is more or less guilty, dude. If it’s ‘smear tactics’, then we’ve all done it, and you can’t fairly judge the entire group by that standard, much as you would like to.
One thing to remember- Julia has, in her own way, done more to make the gospel something we want to know more about. She doesn’t ‘fluff’ it, but she tells the truth without offending. It’s a refreshing approach, and reminds me that God is the God of LOVE as well as conviction. I appreciate her for that. She tells the truth about God, but she tells it as a human being, from down here among us humans, not in judgment from up on the baptist pedestal.
By Brian Curtis
April 18, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Just because you’re offensive and unpopular doesn’t mean you’re speaking the truth, Chuck. The truth is often offensive… but so are lies and hypocrisy.
By The72John
April 18, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
You see, it really doesn’t matter if we believe it or not. God isn’t going to change His mind
Some guy in the third century wrote down that God said it and it was then filtered through centuries of revisions, schisms, cullings, re-writings, re-interpretations, heresies, translations, etc.
Sigh. Why do you fundies need such a simplisitic, juvenile god to worship? Possibly because your minds can’t comprehend anything that isn’t in black and white?
By Jack
April 18, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
Good post Tom. People need to take the vows seriously.
By Mara
April 18, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Archie, I’m sure there are “some ladies somewhere” that are like this, but I don’t know any so I can’t say why they’d be that way. I found it interesting that in describing the chores your friend did, you ended up sounding aggreived that he actually had to do these things. It sort of made me chuckle. “He washed the cars? BOTH of them?! And cleaned the bathroom? How horrible! And he had to cook, too?! Gasp! A saint! The guy is a saint!!” Y’know, even if he did this every day, that’s still only three chores, washing the cars, cooking, and cleaning the bathroom. What’s so awful about it? And a question…when you say that some women “struggle” with housework, what do you mean? Do you mean they don’t know how to clean, that they don’t have time to clean, or they just don’t want to clean?
And a couple other questions to the forum - what do you men consider “nagging”?
What is meant by the phrase “falling out everywhere” regarding low cut tops? I mean, I’ve heard this phrase attached to women who were in no way likely to physically “fall out everywhere” so I was just wondering what you meant by this…
By Archie
April 18, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
“Archie, are there kids involved in the marriages you describe? If I have a dirty bathroom, a 5-year-old son who wants me to play Candyland with him, and a 2-year-old son who wants me to hold him, guess what I am going to pick? The bathroom can wait!”
Monica,thanks for responding but yes there are kids involved. Monica you can play with your children for a short while and get your work done. Remember I talking about this equality,sharing,etc. that everyone is talking about. I am trying to see how many excuses will be made for the women even when they have a spouse that does housework and yardwork. I have said before that a part of being equal involves accepting criticism and it seems as if some of today’s women can’t handle that part. It seems that some,some,some have an excuse regardless of the situation in relationships. I mean if they(women) sleep with a married guy well he’s the one who did his wife wrong. If both male and female work well he can do the housework and yardwork because she’s tired. I applauded JBM’s honesty when she said women will more likely sleep with a friend’s spouse than the men she knew. We already know some men will be slack in housework and we know some men will cheat but when will we address slackness and cheating by women? Any response is fine. Any response.
By The72John
April 18, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
RF, Chuck views you as sub-human, too. Arguing civily with him is like a jew being nice to the SS.
By oscar
April 18, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
No-fault divorce should be allowed if the agreement to divorce is consented to by both sides. However, if one person abandons the family, they should not receive 50% of the assets. This happened to me. My ex-wife would not join my son and I at a new work site. She still got half of everything wven though she abondoned my son and me.
By Julia
April 18, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Chuck-My goodness, where do I start? First of all, I don’t believe in a “namby pamby” gospel either. I’m very sorry if you thought I was critisizing you. I was trying to offer a fellow Christian some advice. You are certainly free to be a witness in your own way just as I am free to be a witness in MY own way.
And by the way, it was the holy spirit leading me to draw people in with loving kindness and a message of Christ’s love and acceptance. Christ’s message is the same. But until a person meets Christ and gives his life to Him he is not going to change. It is Christ who frees you from the yoke of sin. It is Christ who convicts people of sin-not you or I.
I understand what you are trying to say. I’m sorry if you think less of me as a Christian. I’m trying to show people the love of Christ in order for them to want to meet Him for themselves.
I didn’t mean to be harsh and for that I am sorry.
By Justin
April 18, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
THE NO-BLAME GAME: WHY NO-FAULT DIVORCE IS OUR MOST DANGEROUS SOCIAL EXPERIMENT www.stephenbaskerville.net/noblamegame.htm
Three Judicial Biases About Moms, Dads and Children www.warrenfarrell.com/articles.php?id=7
Divorce as Revolution www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/newreadings/2003/DivorceasRevolution_SBsum03.htm
By Mara
April 18, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
Tom - Do you really think God designed marriage only for farmers???
Um, I don’t think “god” designed marriage at all. It’s a social construct, Tom. Originally designed to codify property ownership, like chattel. You do know what “chattel” is, don’t you Tom?
By chuck
April 18, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
72skidoo, don’t flatter yourself. I in NO WAY consider myself to be a VICTIM. I could not care less what you have to say about me. I rather enjoy it, in fact. As I said last week, it lets me know I am saying exactly what I should be saying. If you deny that AIDS funding is primarily disproportionate because of politics, your head is even further you know where than I thought. You are probably the only person in the world who doesn’t understand the politics behind AIDS funding.
RF, what you say does have merit for SOME people on this blog. Everyone has their own slant on things and all of us have occasionally resorted to the smear. You have to admit though that there are many on this blog who contribute NOTHING to understanding. They have a chip on their shoulders and have to have somebody to blame for their poor, miserable little lives. Even Dr. Phil sometimes says “GET OVER IT”
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
The truth can be offensive, but it won’t be received. It’s like the difference between telling your wife her chicken sucks and telling her that it could use a little salt. Either comment might make her uncomfortable for a moment, but one will cause her to shut down or lash out, and the other will likely cause her to add a little salt the next time she makes chicken.
I believe Solomon when he said that it’s harder to win a person who has been offended than it is to win an entire city. Once you offend someone, especially someone who isn’t a friend, you sever ties with that person. It’s rare that they’ll ever respect you or your beliefs; they’ll probably never hear what you’re saying, even if you’re saying the right thing. Just like you take care to shape your message to your children, you must do the same with people who don’t share your beliefs. You don’t want your kids to shut down on you and become belligerent or rebellious, but at the same time, you have to correct them and teach them, even when they don’t want to hear it.
You can tell the truth, and it may hurt, but the truth in love takes the sting away.
Every once in a while, you’ll say something along the lines of “maybe my message is a bit harsh, but…” or “maybe I could’ve said it differently, but…” and you never change your delivery. All you really have to do is ask yourself: is it working? Is anyone coming any closer to Christ because of something you said? Is anyone’s heart p******? Does anyone have a desire to get to know the Christ that you [claim to] know? I’m not asking you those questions, but you should ask yourself. Don’t let stubbornness ruin your potential. There are scores of people here and elsewhere that need to hear what you have to say, but the moment you start bashing (or whatever you call it), they put their hands over their ears and don’t hear another word you say.
You can only justify it for so long. The time will come when you’ll realize that you’ve pushed so many people away, and that their blood is on your hands. You had opportunity after opportunity to share the love of Christ with them, and instead relished in the opportunity to be hateful, causing them to reject Christ and never look back. Sure, they’re responsible for their own souls, but who’s accountable? You are.
There used to be a time when I would drink with my non-church going friends. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with drinking (not in excess), but some of them felt that “christians” shouldn’t drink and if they do, they’re hypocrites. I would repeatedly try to show them why it’s not a sin to drink, and I often felt like they were looking for an excuse to stay away from Christ and the church. When I was ordained, it became even worse: I wasn’t just a church-goer who drinks, I was a drinkin’ preacher! One night, I sat up in bed in the middle of the night and realized (so to speak) that if they’re looking for an excuse, I’m giving it to them. I don’t believe for one minute that drinking is wrong. But, my drinking was serving as a stumblingblock to them. It was giving them a hand-wrapped, convenient excuse to justify their disdain for all things christian.
For them, I had to change my delivery. I couldn’t minister to them, and drink with them. It didn’t compromise my belief or my faith. It didn’t make me any less or greater of a person. It didn’t change my life or my habits. It just removed a hindrance from my ability to witness. I took away what offended my friends, so that I wouldn’t further delay their long, slow walk to Christ.
You cannot witness effectively to those you offend. You simply cannot. And, if you continue to witness under the belief that it’s okay to offend others with the truth, then you’ll never win any souls for Christ because your witness won’t be effective. Well, at least you can lay down at night and smile knowing that, “I sure told them! Boy, did I let them have it! I told them the truth till they bled from their eyes!!” Then, you can wake up in the morning and go to church, while they sleep in. Yeah, you’re really doing a great work for the body.
I look forward to your e-mail. I, too, was tied up with taxes last night.
By RF
April 18, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Renee- where’s the dang tiara today?? Julia definitely gets it for her 10:32!!!
Julia- keep witnessing your way. It’s powerful in its simplicity and patience.
By Archie
April 18, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
“Do you mean they don’t know how to clean, that they don’t have time to clean, or they just don’t want to clean”
Thanks Mara for this question. I mean they just don’t want to clean. Mara there are more than one man that’s complained that he has worked all day while she was off that day but the woman didn’t have any dinner ready. From personal experience when I am off I make sure I have a dinner plan for the family,i.e. going out or me cooking. Once again everyone needs to eat so why not cook if you’re off and he’s working or at least have a plan for dinner. Mara,you probably don’t listen to Michael Baisden so you have not heard the male complaints when the topic is opened up for men. My point is we hear so much from one side in the male-female relationship topic that it’s no wonder in this day and age the divorce rate is up.
By Julia
April 18, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
Thank you RF! (You’re the best!)
I really appreciate what you said on my behalf.
By The72John
April 18, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
If you deny that AIDS funding is primarily disproportionate because of politics, your head is even further you know where than I thought. You are probably the only person in the world who doesn’t understand the politics behind AIDS funding
Of course, Chuck. Since YOU say it, it MUST be true.
Forget the fact that every major medical association and health organization world-wide cites AIDS as the single greatest crisis that we currently face. It’s all because of the GAYS.
Gee, I wish I had known earlier that we had such a POWERFUL lobby. We wouldn’t be worried about emotionaly crippled bigots like you trying to take our rights away.
it lets me know I am saying exactly what I should be saying
The rallying cry of the blind and deaf fundamentalist. If my message is offensive then it must be right. Now, I KNOW that these Hitler and Nazi references are inflamatory, and that you probably storm around after I make them, but the NAZI’s message was offensive to many people as well…does that make THEM right, too?
Sorry, but this statement of yours is a defense mechanism for your the feeble foundation upon which your fundamentalism rests. You simply filter out any objections to your message and regard it all as confirmation of your beliefs.
You are a pitiful excuse for a thinker, Chuckie.
By GOB
April 18, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
My ex-wife would not join my son and I at a new work site. She still got half of everything wven though she abondoned my son and me.
If you left to go to a new work site, how exactly did she abandon you?
By lozen
April 18, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
72john, your 10:21 was so good! Have you read, Misquoting Jesus? Very dry and scholarly but such a great explanation of what happened with the many groups that disagreed about who and what jesus was during the first, second and third centuries and the books they wrote and rewrote, changed and changed again to promote their particular beliefs and show that the other groups were all wrong! There was the group who believed jesus was an ordinary man who was imbued with the Christ spirit when he was baptized. There was the group that believed there were two separate beings, the man and the spirit. There was a group that believed he was god/man/son. We know which group won the battle of wits and went on to define who and what jesus was, which writings out of hundreds should be included in the bible, and establishment of orthodox christianity and the catholic hierarchy.
Chuck’s god is nothing but a projection of chuck and his vengeful, judgmental, holier-than-thou personality!
By Mara
April 18, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
Archie, what makes you say that women can’t accept criticism? Do you mean that they don’t agree with the criticism, thus won’t accept it? Or do you mean that they don’t change their ways of doing things after they’ve been criticized? My husband and I had an issue where I used to ask him to do something and then stand around telling him how to do it. He finally looked at me one day and said “Honey, you can ask me to do a chore or you can tell me how to do it. You don’t get to do both.” He felt that I didn’t trust him to do the job even though I thought I was just being helpful. So you see, criticism to one is merely helpful advice to another, which is why I’m asking about the situation…
on Cheating - Statistically, men are more likely to cheat than women. That doesn’t mean women don’t cheat, merely that they are less likely to. IMO there is no excuse for it, whether it’s done by a man or a woman, so you ain’t gettin’ one from me!
By Justin
April 18, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
Oscar, and the courts allow it to happen…She walked away and she should’ve gotten zilch! And, if she changes her mind about not taking your son, the courts will allow her to come back, take your son, and get 17-23% of your “gross” income.
Mara, I consider nagging when a woman or man constantly stays on one subject, constantly trying to change your mind to get “their” way. Nagging doesn’t compromise. They follow you around until you just say “enough already, do what you want”.
Archie, I know plenty of women who are not neat. Maintaining a home before I married, I did the cooking, housework, and the yard work. Women cheating is at an all time high also. I know plenty of men whose wives left them to run off with their personal trainer.
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
RF, Julia… how come you guys can say it in like 3 sentences and it takes me 3 pages!!!! LOL!
Sorry for 3-pager, everyone… I guess I got carried away. I really get carried away when it comes to this subject… or “heated” as some call it.
By chuck
April 18, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
Okay JBM, tell me how you can say that homosexuality is a sin and not offend homosexuals.
By Justin
April 18, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
Mara, This is part of what men call nagging…
My husband and I had an issue where I used to ask him to do something and then stand around telling him how to do it.
By Anh
April 18, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
Divorce is up because people and society as a whole became selfish and self center. Marriage is for live. People are coming into marriage thinking it something fun to do. If the person is religious, they should be excommunicate for divorces and not allow to worship because they are sinner. Family benefit and rights should not to given to anyone who are not legally married. Divorse should never be easy, and no fault divorce make marriage a joke. Whatever the underlying reason why couple divorces, there should be shame and public stigma to the act. The failure of society the shame and humiliated compliance is a sign of social corruption.
Or if we want to make marriage a thing of the past then we should stop rewarding marriage and family. If they want kids they should put down a deposit for k-12 years of expense on society or we can house all children in special barrack for social education away for the corrupts adult.
By Tim
April 18, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
well my partners personal trainer is nice looking… I’d probably run away with him
By GOB
April 18, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
I consider nagging when a woman or man constantly stays on one subject, constantly trying to change your mind to get “their” way. Nagging doesn’t compromise. They follow you around until you just say “enough already, do what you want”.
Justin - You are aware that this describes you on this blog to a tee, right? I mean, I dont think I could have come up with a better description.
By The72John
April 18, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
Chuck’s god is nothing but a projection of chuck and his vengeful, judgmental, holier-than-thou personality!
Very true. Chuck has encased himself in an unassailable mesh of denial and condemnation. Any criticism levied against him he takes as confirmation of the correctness of his actions. Any anger directed towards him he views as the problem of the person who is angry, rather than as a result of his own spiteful, vicious personality.
By Jack
April 18, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
Julia. Don’t dare apologize to Chuck for anything. You put out the Christian message much better than he.
Mara. Nagging is when the wifer is trying to get the procrastinating husband to do something he wants to put off and since she can’t beat his a$$, she repeats her request over and over again. Works pretty good too. :)
By GOB
April 18, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
Chuck - Have you ever read “Between Noon and Three”? It is probably the most insightful book on how much our actions and “sins” really matter in the god’s grand scheme of things.
By Justin
April 18, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Archie, They don’t listen to Michael Baisden or they would understand why some men are fed up. Women want it all, but don’t understand they can’t have it all. They have to compromise in some way. But no, men are the ones who should compromise according to them.
By Renee
April 18, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Chuck, you could say, you believe homosexuality is a sin. What you have to realize, Chuck, is your beliefs are just that….YOUR BELIEFS. Christianity and/or spirituality is very faith based, which does not make it a reality. While your faith may be strong enough to make it reality for you, all do not share that faith and/or reality. The Bible doesn’t make it so, the preacher doesn’t make it so, but if it is as such in your faith, your reality, then all power to you. The offense comes when you begin stating your reality as fact to others who do not share your beliefs.
By GOB
April 18, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
If the person is religious, they should be excommunicate for divorces and not allow to worship because they are sinner.
Christian love makes me feel warm all over.
By Justin
April 18, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
GOB, in that case it could describe many of you on this blog.
By Renee
April 18, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
RF - JBM had the tiara last. I’m sure she’ll give it up though.
By lozen
April 18, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Archie I think a woman who won’t clean the house needs to be stoned! What could be more important than a clean house? Maybe we should return to biblical times when a woman caught in adultery was stoned. Oh, but so was the man. I guess that would take care of Campbell, Brooks and so many, many more. What amazes me is how many couples will not hire someone to clean the house even though they have two incomes and enough money to do so, because they are so stuck in thinking it’s the woman’s job to clean the house! Sure there are women who don’t clean or don’t clean enough to keep the house that three, four or five people are messing up. Your point seems to be that there are women who aren’t perfect, just as there are men who aren’t perfect. There are women who don’t take responsibility just as there are men who don’t. What do you want us to do about it?
By Justin
April 18, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
Jack, sometimes some men just tune them out. See, many women think when they marry a man, they become his parent not his partner.
Just watch some of the shows such as wife swap and your new mommy. The women are mainly the ones who are eccentric and different. Most men are happy with themselves. Women want to change them. Women look at a man and think, “He has potential and I can mold him into what I want”.
By Mara
April 18, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Archie, I have to admit that I’ve never even heard of this guy, Michael Baisden, let alone listen to him.
Here’s my thoughts on your questions. Some people are lazy. Whether they’re men or women, some people are just lazy. To be honest, I’m sort of struggling with this. Since I don’t personally know anyone who acts like your examples, it’s hard to say what’s going on. I can understand why one might be upset that the house wasn’t straight when someone was there all day, but I’m just not getting this preoccupation with having dinner ready. Some days I just don’t feel like cooking, even if I’ve been home all day. My husband knows how to cook and he can definitly peanut butter bread with the best of them, so what’s the big deal? Even on the days when one of us is off, neither of us are obligated to cook dinner. Of course, we don’t have children or regular dinner times either, so that might be a factor…
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
That’s an easy one. In general, people are not offended when you express your beliefs, assuming those beliefs are not racially or socio-economically biased. (Racial and economic issues tend to stir emotions in people in a different kind of way).
It is not offensive (to me, or any of my homosexual friends) to hear a “christian” say I believe the Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin. Why on earth would we flip out over what they believe the Bible says? Some folks don’t even believe in the Bible, so saying homosexuality is a sin based on the Bible is like saying lying is wrong according to the gospel of Bill Clinton chapter 4, verse 18! Those homosexuals who do believe in the Bible, but don’t believe homosexuality is sinful, aren’t offended by the popular, quite common interpretation that homosexuality is a sin. We know that most of you think that way, so it doesn’t bother us one bit. Sure, we may get passionate (or heated) when engaging in discussion about the subject, but it doesn’t mean we’re offended.
On the flip side, on this blog, you never
NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, NEVER, NOPE NEVER, EVER
address the subject with “truth” in love. You point fingers and make flip remarks like, “you don’t have to believe it, God said it and that’s all that matters so you’re going to burn in hell anyway.”
You can still preach the same message, but with a different style. You can say, “I love you regardless of who you sleep with, I just don’t believe that homosexuality is right in the eyes of God.” Or, you can say, “I understand what you believe, but I believe that homosexuality is sinful.”
Renee and RF might debate with you. NetB might tell you why he disagrees. John might tell you off. But, no one is offended. We’ve just heard your opinion, and countered it with ours. For all you know, there may be a homosexual child who was raised in a church that taught against homosexuality. He might hear your loving words and be convicted. He might be led to search the scriptures or get on his knees and turn from his “wicked” ways.
But, that same boy who hears the venom you spew now will only fold his arms with frustration, having heard those same hateful words all his life.
I spent the last five years in churches that preach against homosexuality. Believe me, hateful preaching does NOT turn a homosexual straight. If you won’t take it from a non-christian, take it from me. I’ve been there. I’ve been on both sides of the issue. I know. I live it. I know that there is no preaching in the world that is going to “turn me around” or scare me straight. If you really believe my lifestyle is wrong, the best thing you can do for me is (1) pray for me, and (2) love me just the way I am. Leave the “changing” to Christ. That’s his job, not yours.
I mean, you and I are clearly two very different people, and I’m not trying to change you (although I think you could benefit from some changes - and you probably think the same of me). If you are satisfied with hurting, not helping, people, then carry on.
By The72John
April 18, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Just watch some of the shows such as wife swap and your new mommy. The women are mainly the ones who are eccentric and different. Most men are happy with themselves. Women want to change them. Women look at a man and think, “He has potential and I can mold him into what I want”
You can’t base your perception of people on a group of individuals selected by TV executives to put on a good show. There are plenty of eccentric, bizarre husbands out there and perfectly stable and down-to-earth wives.
Sorry that you had such a bad experience with women, but you’ve let it color everything. You say “See, many women think when they marry a man, they become his parent not his partner”, but someone could easily also say “See, many men think when they marry a man, they become her owner”.
Gender stereotypes are as innacurate as any other kind of stereotype.
By Mara
April 18, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
See, jack. That’s what I’d consider nagging. Repetitive and unrelenting. How Justin equates helpful advice with nagging is beyond my understanding, but I did ask for opinion. I shouldn’t expect to agree with it. :^)
By GOB
April 18, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
No doubt, Justin, but you are the one complaining about nagging, and its negative impacts…plus the description just fit so perfectly.
By Whiley
April 18, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Are Justin & Zack the same person? Or they’re related? Maybe they are neighbors & both their wives left them so they have each other to vent to?
lol Justin I don’t think women are going to be a problem for you ever again. (of course it’s THEM not YOU)
By Jack
April 18, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
“wifer” Gee, I thought I could spel.
Justin. Women marry men hoping they will change, men marry women hoping they won’t change. I never watch either of those shows, can’t do it. Nanny 911 either.
By Archie
April 18, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Mara I mean some women don’t change their ways after they’ve been criticized. For example as I was trying to help a young lady play billiards she took the opposite shot of the one I told her to take,even though she obviously didn’t know what she was doing.The young lady kind of sighed because things didn’t work out. Heck if she had taken the shot I told her she would have been in better position for the next shot. I also mean Mara,some women don’t like it when a man not their boss tells them something,well,as men we get criticized and rightfully so. People get on certain bloggers for being harsh but sometimes that’s the way things need to said and it seems that some women can’t deal with that. The women may agree with the criticism but don’t like the delivery and reject it but some things can’t be sugarcoated. Also I would have felt like your husband depending,depending on what the chore was. I used to get criticized when I did laundry but I took the criticism and improved quickly. My spouse complained about the cleanliness of the carport but she did nothing to help and I very quickly pointed out that fact. As for the cheating I had the situation with the Pastor who had affairs with two married women that lasted over 10 years on my mind. I did see a few female posts criticizing the women but I also saw plenty of excuses.
JBM good job on explaining the drinking situation,because that is exactly how a minister explained it to me years ago. I do understand what you were trying to say weeks ago about Bishop Long and his protests against homosexuality. I am around people like that all the time and they really think they’re not harming anyone and they have no intention of physical violence. I don’t agree with their protests against one particular sin(thing— if that makes everybody feel better) but I can’t control them.
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
I guess I can pass the tiara on… Julia is certainly deserving.
You’re a queen, indeed, Jules!
By RF
April 18, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
RF, Julia… how come you guys can say it in like 3 sentences and it takes me 3 pages!!!!
Geez, you’re a minister—I thought it was required of you guys!! Keep talking just long enough so the line will be shorter at Shoney’s!! LOLOL
Execellent 11:22 by the way! People have a hard time understanding that if we debate them, we’re not arguing. Some folks don’t like to be debated with, do they?? My dad’s that way, and my mom calls him pigheaded, but I wouldn’t presume to apply that to anyone here!! ;-)
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Oh no!!!! Everybody act like you’re asleep. Quick!!!
By The72John
April 18, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
lol Justin I don’t think women are going to be a problem for you ever again. (of course it’s THEM not YOU)
Uh…it IS possible for women to be at fault sometimes. It’s not ALWAYS the man’s fault.
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Can we oogle the woman in the next pew over? (while pretending to be asleep) LOL
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
lol Justin I don’t think women are going to be a problem for you ever again. (of course it’s THEM not YOU)
I think she implied Justin may have a difficult time getting that second or third date.
By RF
April 18, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
ZZZZZZzzzzzz, snort snort, ZZZZZZzzzzzzzz. I could do this for real this time of day!
By Archie
April 18, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
“What amazes me is how many couples will not hire someone to clean the house even though they have two incomes and enough money to do so, because they are so stuck in thinking it’s the woman’s job to clean the house!”
Lozen you’re obviously older than I am because that is not the thinking of today. Not one time did I imply it was only,only the woman’s job,I merely delivered a criticism. Most of the men of today, that is guys under 50, do housework. All I am asking for is commentary and a bit of acknowledgement. You have provided both. It would be nice if women would pay attention to the complaints of the men of today and not just focus on one side of the relationship issue.
By Renee
April 18, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Nagging can take several forms, including Justin’s, IMO.
JBM - excellent posts! Your 11:34 is tooo funny!
By RF
April 18, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Pssst, Chilao— you do that during the salvation prayer time, dude.
By chuck
April 18, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
So Renee, as a history teacher should I say that I believe the Civil War was fought between 1861 and 1865? It is either the truth or it isn’t. The Bible either teaches it or it doesn’t. There are some areas where scripture does not come out flatly and say that something is a sin…for instance, as JBM brought up earlier, drinking. There does not appear to be a flat out prohibition of it, but there are many, many warnings about it. I can’t FLATLY come out and say that drinking alcohol is a sin. I could say that I believe that drinking alcohol is problematic for a believer and then list the reasons.
When it comes to homosexuality, there is no such ambiguity. The Bible teaches that it is a sin. Period. There is no reason in my mind, to qualify that with an “I believe” statement. Just as no one is required to believe that the sky is blue, no one has to believe that homosexuality is a sin. It doesn’t change the fact. To me qualifying that would be compromising with sin which I am not going to do. It makes it sound as if there is room for error on the subject when clearly according to the Bible, there is not. Why would that be a problem for someone who does not believe the Bible? All they have to do is dismiss it and go on with their lives. BUT, they don’t do that. Rather, they challenge it. Who is it they are trying to convince? If you don’t “believe it”, why sweat it?
My belief is that people who are gay know deep down inside that it is wrong. Very few of us like to have our faults pointed out to us…including myself. We do try to justify what we are doing. We look for acceptance.
There is an analogy in the Bible from Matthew chapter 9. Some men brought their friend to Jesus to be healed. He was paralyzed. Jesus told him to get up and go home, that his sins were forgiven. The religious elite considered this to be blasphemy. Jesus said:
4Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins….” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.
In other words, Jesus could have used other words that would not have offended the religious elite, but He was trying to make a point. He had authority that came from God, because He was God.
I am decidedly NOT GOD, but I don’t have to be to read and understand the Bible or to teach others what it says. I contend that there is NOTHING I could say, and NO WAY that I could say homosexuality is a sin without offending homosexuals. Why not then just be plain and open and honest about it?
By Renee
April 18, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
RF - The zzzzzzz’s or the snort???? LOL, never mind.
By Renee
April 18, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
No, Chuck, as a teacher you can state a fact as to the dates of the Civil War. That would not be a belief. Just because you believe the Bible to be gospel does not make it so.
By Tim
April 18, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
My belief is that people who are gay know deep down inside that it is wrong
nice to know that Chuck knows what a gay man feels deep down inside
oh and FYI… the Bible is just as “fuzzy” on homosexuality as it is on drinking… just because a lil NIV Bible says that it’s a sin doesn’t make it so… research in the original text… no one can find ANYWHERE in the Bible where it flat out says that homosexuality is a sin
By Julia
April 18, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
JBM-thanks a million! (Never wore a tiara before.)
If didn’t have so much work on my desk I’d probably write a 3 pager myself today. Maybe work will slow down…
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
RF - I usually keep my eyes open during group prayers, and when someone notices, I just say “Oh, I was the prayer monitor when I was a kid, I was supposed to make sure everyone else had their eyes shut during prayer, so I am used to having them open”. LOL
Sometimes they get it, Sometimes they definitely do not like it(my view).
Okay, I am over 50, but from a large family. we did not grow up with the concept of man’s work or woman’s work, it was work to be shared. So us boys were very proficient house cleaners and cooks, and our sisters were very good with mowing the lawn, tilling the garden, etc.
By RF
April 18, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
I am decidedly NOT GOD
No offense, chuck, but I’m glad to hear that!!!!
Very few of us like to have our faults pointed out to us…including myself. We do try to justify what we are doing. We look for acceptance See John, he does admit the truth!!
Who is it they are trying to convince? If you don’t “believe it”, why sweat it?
Then why, Chuck, do the religious keep bringing it up?? What are YOU so worried about? Those who are obsessed with it aren’t the ones living it! Yesterday it was Randy who threw it in the debate, and today it’s you. So far, you guys are two for two bringing it into the conversation. But if we debate you, we’re just trying to justify our unconscious guilt. Yeah, right!! So you can say it’s wrong, but we’re not supposed to debate you. Quit bringing it up—we never argue about it when you’re not here stirring the poop!
By lozen
April 18, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
fault, smault. Women blame men and men blame women. Men and women don’t really like each other or trust each other in general, so we create fantasies about each other. Women dream of the perfect man, and men dream of the perfect woman. (Some men dream of the perfect man; some women dream of the perfect woman.) Then you think you found them! You are sunk in romantic and lustful thoughts of the great sex that will last forever, the perfect relationship, the one who will always accept you and love you and be there to support you. It doesn’t take long to realize it’s a fantasy and then we hate each other. We get on a blog and go on and on about how awful women or how awful men are. We don’t have to do anything to actually try to improve our situation because it’s all her/his fault. We are just poor, innocent victims! We all do it. I guess I still have some gender issues and expectations to work on because it’s a lot harder for me to listen to men whine and play victim than to hear women do that!
By RF
April 18, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Renee- no snorts, but I would take a few shots!! Boy, if you don’t drink before you start teaching, you will shortly after!! LOLOL
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
HAHAHAHAH, RF!!! Good one!
chuck, I was just reminded of a church in Smyrna or Marietta… I’ll have to look up the name of it. But, like many churches, they have a group that ministers to “ex-gays.” A friend of mine who was never comfortable being gay heard about the ministry and visited the church. He said after service, a guy came up to him and introduced himself, shared the love of Christ with him, and gave him his business card. He told my friend to call him if he ever wanted to talk. A couple of weeks later after they had spoken a few times, I guess the guy felt the time was right, he asked my friend if he was gay and invited him to the group.
The difference between that church and many others is their approach. They have been wildly “successful” (if you call it that) in receiving (not reforming) gay people who want to be straight. They recognize that we are bashed day in and day out, from the parking lot to the pulpit, we are mocked, beat down, ridiculed, some of us are confused, cast aside, forsaken, many were cut off from family members, etc. They recognize that the last thing the gay community needs is someone to beat them over the head with the Bible and billy-club them into salvation. They recognize that if they want to change (like my friend), they will come.
I don’t recall the statistics, but they were really impressive. I’ve worked with quite a few churches in Atlanta that have these “reform” groups, and none of them work. Not one.
Because of my position in the church community, I know hundreds, if not thousands, of gay people in Atlanta. Many of them are comfortable with who they are, and some are not. But, we all agree: the church has exacerbated their emotional state, mental health, and overall well-being with is refusal to love the “sinner” even if they hate the “sin.” Hence the increasing number of “church dropouts.” I’ve known pastors with wives, children, and boyfriends, to preach hate and hellfire to all homosexuals - under the guise of “love the sinner, hate the sin.”
Love, I remind you, is an action word. It’s not something you say, it’s something you DO. The guy my friend met loved him with his deeds. He believes that homosexuality is wrong, and he thought my friend did too. When the time was right, he approached the subject carefully and lovingly, and was able to help my friend in his walk to whatever the heck he’s doing these days! lol… seriously, it’s all in the approach.
There’s no way you can say today that you “love” John and have it mean anything at all. Nobody here would believe it.
By Archie
April 18, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
“I guess I still have some gender issues and expectations to work on because it’s a lot harder for me to listen to men whine and play victim than to hear women do that!”
Finally Lozen you’re speaking frankly. I want you and other women to think about that statement the next time relationship issues come up.
By Jack
April 18, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Chilao. You old dog. Sure that wasn’t 60 instead of 50? (Just kidding)
By Mara
April 18, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Archie, if someone (of either gender) doesn’t agree with the criticizers opinion, then of course they won’t change their ways, unless the criticism is coming from their boss. To use a previous illustration, if the woman doesn’t agree with the man that the chicken needs more salt, it’s really, really doubful that she’ll start salting the chicken more. Why? Because she doesn’t agree that the criticism is valid. And if it isn’t valid, why should she change? And just because you may think that the chicken needs salt, it doesn’t follow that it actually does, if you see what I mean. Just because you offer criticism doesn’t automatically mean that you’re right.
As for the pool-playing young lady, I wonder if perhaps it WAS in your delivery. After all, you do say that “she took the opposite shot of the one I told her to take” I don’t like being told what to do either, whether its by a man or another woman. Most people don’t. Maybe that’s why there’s so much advice offered in Management Training seminars about communicating with and criticizing the underlings. I firmly believe that there is nothing that has to be said offensively. You disagree, saying “but some things can’t be sugarcoated.” There’s a huge difference in attitude between saying “Shoot this ball like this and aim it over there” and “If you want to try this ball here in that pocket there, you could try shooting in like this…” One’s an order and the other a suggestion. Which would you be more likely to accept?
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
I’m convinced that if all the chucks of the world, and their pastors, spent half as much energy combatting backstabbing, lying, fornicating, adultery, child pornography, and general lack of integrity - the world would be a much better place.
You guys can open your eyes now, I think she’s gone.
By RF
April 18, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
They recognize that the last thing the gay community needs is someone to beat them over the head with the Bible and billy-club them into salvation
Preach on sister JBM, preach on. Can we get an AMEN?!!!
By Monica
April 18, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
JBM, If you don’t mind my asking, what type of church are you a minister in? Just curious. Do you use any text as the basis of your beliefs?
By Netbanker
April 18, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Back from a very relaxing vacation after 4 15 hour days helping running the annual client conference. I see the topic was dropped quickly. I’ll be around later, but have over 200 email to plow through, but here’s a few thoughts and comments to keep things spinning…
I have never posted under a name other than my own and will never do so.
Shaunti’s statement that “the marriage contract is society’s foundation” really off base. The marriage contract might be A single stone in the foundation of society, but not the whole foundation simply because a marriage is focused solely on 2 individuals entering the marriage contract and all the definitions of society specifically are based on groups of individuals who are together voluntarily and share a commonality. Since the 2 are opposed (with the exception of polygamous marriages) the marriage contract can not be THE foundation.
Randy…can you give us some actual examples of this so called persecution of Christians in America? The definition of persecute is “to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief.” How would words in the media and the removal of private beliefs in Christ from government property cause you to suffer other than emotionally? Are Christians not causing the same emotional injury to homosexuals with their words? Is this really persecution or just hurt feelings?
Chuck…can you show me some figures for your ascertion regarding research funding for AIDS vs the other diseases you mention?
Americans will die off, while foreigners will have the benefit of our ancestors’ blood. What are you talking about? Americans ARE all foreigners unless you speak of Native Americans. The benefits of which you speak were built by former waves of immigrants starting with the Pilgrims. This is the beauty and history of our nation. What we are experiencing now with the current Hispanic Panic is the same thing that happened with the Italians and the Irish to name 2 groups that quickly come to mind.
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
Jack - and here I had so nicely left off “over 50, but not as old as Jack” (the thought crossed my mind). geeeez.
J/K!(but the thought DID cross my mind) LOL
By lozen
April 18, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
Just go right on chuck, fighting off your deepest desires. Why would you hone in so much on what you think the bible says about homosexuality as opposed to what it says about taking care of the poor, loving others, not judging others until you look at yourself? The answer to that question is a well known psychological fact: people hate what they have repressed in themselves. Obviously you are a man who would love to come out but you’ve repressed that all your life because you’ve been taught it’s a sin. The bible says it’s an abomination to sleep with the same sex. The bible says it’s an abomination to handle pig skin. I don’t care what the bible says but you do. Why aren’t you ranting about football as much as you do about homosexuality? I guess you haven’t repressed your desires to handle pig skins!
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Jack - last summer I went to the movies and the ‘clerk’ or whatever they are called at the cinema, looked up at me and asked “Do you get the senior discount?”. I started laughing and said “actually 50 is my next birthday”. and had to followup with “You know you are getting older when the people who are older than you look younger than they really are”(as in “You’re 52, dang, you look my age, duh, that’s right, you ARE my age”)
and she, well I had no idea, so I completed it with “and you know you are getting older when the people who are younger than you look younger than they really are, what are you, 16 or so?”. She was about 20 actually, college student, and she laughed.
By RF
April 18, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
Hey Net!!! Good to hear ya. The idiots have been at their usual spittle-spewing best while you were away.
How would words in the media and the removal of private beliefs in Christ from government property cause you to suffer other than emotionally? Are Christians not causing the same emotional injury to homosexuals with their words? Is this really persecution or just hurt feelings?
See JBM, that’s how you do it in less than three pages!!LOL
Julia- you might have some competition for the tiara in a little while, so don’t get too attached.
By lozen
April 18, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
Welcome back Net! I followed your advice and moved half my assets into international emerging markets. Thanks for the tip. As usual you bring with you clear thought and rational discussion!
Tim, hi honey. Yes, you have to wait until you’re 35 to enjoy that blender. And, of course, chuck knows how gay men feel inside ;-)
By Sylvia
April 18, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
good point Netbanker…i hate to be called a foreigner because my famiy at least has been on this side of the globe longer then most “Americans” so please just get out of my SPHERE
By chuck
April 18, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
Uh, Lozen and RF, the reason I brought it up was in response to another post about gays being liberal or conservative. Only one time in the HISTORY of my being on this blog have I been the FIRST to bring up the topic and that was because of Shaunti and Diane’s remarks.
As you do, I talk about whatever is being discussed. If it is appropriate to the subject being discussed, I talk about it. BTW Lozen you are about the 50th person to make the “repressed desires” comment. It wasn’t clever the first time and coming from you it’s even less so.
By Archie
April 18, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
“As for the pool-playing young lady, I wonder if perhaps it WAS in your delivery. After all, you do say that “she took the opposite shot of the one I told her to take” I don’t like being told what to do either, whether its by a man or another woman.”
Mara the young lady didn’t get angry or frown, in fact she was a pleasant person period, but had she taken the instruction she would have been better off. I must point out that later on she did take some instruction from me. My point is you’re talking about delivery and making excuses. I would never make a demand in a bar Mara and you’re being unnecessarily intellectual or feminist with my example. My point was take the criticism and move on,don’t always try to analyze or intellectualize. You’re trying so hard to make excuses rather than just take some things constructively and move on. In my example I did not yell or demand and I must point out she was happy when she saw the results of the instruction. I am not out to bash women just point some truths that some are uncomfortable with. That’s the reason I liked JBM’s comments last week about the cheating and Lozen’s comments about her gender issues. Lunchtime…
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
Chuck, do you agree that there is no definitive evidence that God exists? Do you believe that there is no definitive evidence that the Bible is the unadulterated word from God? Do you believe that the main separator between believers and non-believers is faith: the unquestioning belief in something/someone we cannot physically see, hear, touch, taste, smell or prove the existence of?
If so, you have to understand that non-believers don’t consider it “fact” just because you said so. Even I would have a hard time - without faith - believing that “God said it and that settles it.”
Take this for an example (and try not to be offended, because that’s not my intention, I promise). I believe strongly that you are not of God, but of satan. I can build a really strong argument to show why I believe this, and why I know it’s true. However, when it comes down to making my case, it’s acceptable for me to say, “I believe…” since I’m working on convincing others to receive my message as fact.
It doesn’t make my message any less potent, it doesn’t invalidate my argument or compromise what I believe. I’m just letting others know that although I understand they don’t believe what I believe, I still maintain my argument.
You can use the same argument for homosexuals who believe they were born gay. Just because they believe it doesn’t automatically make you believe it; nor does it make it a fact. We’re not talking about science here, we’re talking about convictions.
Saying “I know you love your partner, and I know you believe you were born gay, but I believe in God and His word. And, I’m convinced that God disapproves of homosexuality. I believe it’s wrong because God said it’s wrong. God is a restorer and I know that He’ll restore you if you allow Him to” is not a compromise to what you believe. It’s the same message, packaged differently.
I believe that the only reason it’s hard for you to say it that way is that that takes love, and you’re seriously lacking in that area.
I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t close this sermon with a scripture… LOL! (Just for you RF)
Beloved, let us love one another for love is of God and everyone that loves is born of God and knows God. He that doesn’t love doesn’t know God for God is love…
Beloved, if God loves us, we also ought to love one another… No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
God is love, and he who abides in love, abides in God, and God abides in him.
If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.
I John 4:7-8, 11-12, 16b, 20
And, my personal favorite:
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
John 13:34-35
That’s how a non-believer or believer will know whether you are truly a disciple of Christ.
(Purely a coincidence that those scriptures came from John)… hehehehe
By Jack
April 18, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
I knew I was getting older when I went to the doctor and he was younger than me. Much younger. Didn’t trust him. (doctors are supposed to be old. LOL)
By Tim
April 18, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
Preach on sister JBM, preach on. Can we get an AMEN?!!!
be careful… you’ll get the pentecostals speakin in tongues!!
lozen… that’s ok… I’m having too much fun livin in sin with my partner anyway lol :)
hey net!!! long time no chat… where did you go on vacation? I’m goin to Puerto Vallarta May 6th… My birthday is April 29th so the trip is my bday present
By lozen
April 18, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
Lozen you’re obviously older than I am because that is not the thinking of today. Oh, come on Archie. The women I work with are in their 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. They take turns complaining about their husbands not helping with cleaning, childcare etc. If most men of today do housework why do all the studies that are done show that women are unhappy because they still are expected to do that and work outside the home?
By The72John
April 18, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
Chuck doesn’t even believe that Christianity teaches love and tolerance. How can you expect him to deal with more complex issues?
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
Yayyyyy NetB’s back!!!!!
Monica, I am a member of an Apostolic/Pentecostal church, but because of my work (and recently, other non-work issues), I rarely go to the same church for more than a year. I was licensed in the Church of God in Christ (www.cogic.org) which does not teach that homosexuality is acceptable. I was ordained in an Apostolic/Pentecostal church that also doesn’t condone homosexuality, although the pastor is gay.
I’m not sure what you mean by your second question about text, but I’ll give it a shot. Yes, I use scriptural text when I’m preaching. Yes, everything I believe (or don’t believe) is supported by scripture - although that doesn’t say too much since the Bible can be used to prove and disprove many opposing viewpoints.
By lozen
April 18, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
But chuck doesn’t hate homosexuals; he hates the sin! He just wants homosexuals to have less civil rights than heterosexuals; he doesn’t HATE them!
By Mara
April 18, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
Okay Archie. You asked for opinion and I gave it. I don’t agree that explaining why a woman might disregard your criticism is in any way “making an excuse”. You wanted to know why, and I told you what I thought. Whether my opinion was valid is pretty much beside the point, but it wasn’t an “excuse”, Archie. It was an *explaination”.
But then, I actually believed you when you said you wanted to know what we women thought. Had I known that I was just supposed to “take the criticism and move on, don’t always try to analyze or intellectualize” I wouldn’t have even bothered. Silly me. When someone gives me advice or criticism I usually try to find out if that criticism is valid…shoulda known that I was just supposed to swallow it whole, without the slightest bit of analysis. Okay then. Have a nice day.
Oh, and by the way…I am an intellectual and a feminist. Which, I suppose, is why I actually think about things before I accept their validity.
By FatMoose
April 18, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
Heard a impressive Reverend on NPR this weekend.
When he was asked if he thought if there was a religious uprising, he replied “Yes, and these are rarely a good thing.” and continued with “That might sound odd coming from a reverend, but these religious people are out to guarantee their way into heaven. They are looking for absolutes, and Christianity should promote transcending being huan and to provide comfort in a world without absolutes.”
And when asked about homosexuality, he expressed that he is frustrated with the church since “the bible NEVER addresses a relationship bw two loving people of the same sex.”
Made me think about a few of the religious people on here that seem fixated on getting THEIR golden ticket into heaven by mastering the rules.
By Justin
April 18, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
The Alternatives to Marriage Project (AtMP) is a national nonprofit organization advocating for equality and fairness for unmarried people, including people who choose not to marry, cannot marry, or live together before marriage.
www.unmarried.org
By Netbanker
April 18, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
JBM..well done!
Julia…you set a wonderful example of the LOVE of Christ and what being a christian is supposed to be about.
Randy, Zack, and Chuck…you guys should maybe take note that no one attacks Julia for her faith or christian statements because she speaks with her heart which is filled with love rather than the slash and burn techniques you guys use.
Chuck…bad example with the Civil War and the Bible. Based on the definitions of fact and faith you can NEVER, EVER support your arguments about homosexuality or anything else by using the Bible or your belief system due to the bolded part of the faith definition below. All religions are about faith so I’m not trying to single out christianity here at all.
FACT: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY 4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence
FAITH: belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
My belief is that people who are gay know deep down inside that it is wrong. That statement illuminates your prejudice against gays. You believe it is wrong (and it turns out that belief is a synonym for faith) therefore others must also. It is a faith-based belief.
Why aren’t you ranting about football as much as you do about homosexuality? I guess you haven’t repressed your desires to handle pig skins! Since men are pigs and gay males are men, then handling pig skins is the same desire right? He’s just handline two desires with one repression. hehehehehehe
By Jack
April 18, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
“such a fine line…I hate to see it go.”
OK Mara. Who sang this?
By Monica
April 18, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Thanks, JBM. When I asked about the text I meant the Bible. Sorry that wasn’t clear. Most churches use the Bible, but others use altenate texts (ie, the Book of Mormon) I appreciate the way that you share your views.
By Renee
April 18, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
Smooches Net!!!
By GOB
April 18, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
Am I the only one noticing that Archie is slowly morphing into Justin with his comments today?
By RF
April 18, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Net- GOOOOOD 1:17!! Now let’s see how it gets twisted around and everything justified because of the truth.
By Julia
April 18, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Monica-I forgot to say thank you this morning for your kind words. You are a really nice lady. Thanks!
JBM-I loved your posts. Your 12:45 was awesome! (LOL at the last part!!!)
Tim-My birthday is on the 23rd. Happy early birthday if I don’t get to talk to you before then.
RF-I think JBM deserves that tiara.
NetB-You are awesome! Thanks for your kind words. You are missed on here when you are away. Everyone loves you!
Chuck-I want to get back to you in a little while. I have a few more things to add to our conversation…;)
By Monica
April 18, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
This one’s for you, Archie.
Woman 1: How is your daughter and her new husband?
Woman 2: Oh just great! He is so sweet and just wonderful to her! He cleans the bathrooms, mops the floors, washes the clothes, makes dinner, he’s just wonderful!
Woman 1: How nice! How is your son and his new wife?
Woman 2: Well, that’s a different story. She is so lazy, my poor son has to clean the bathrooms, mop the floors, wash the clothes, and even make dinner…
By Mara
April 18, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
C’mon Jack. At least challenge me LOL!!! That, my dear, is the great Jackson Browne :^)
By The72John
April 18, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Most churches use the Bible, but others use altenate texts
Uh huh - and some use the works of Science Fiction author L. Ron Hubbard…those are the one’s you have to look out for.
By Netbanker
April 18, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Hey Tim! It HAS been a long time. Happy Upcoming Birthday!! A trip to PV is a good birthday present. Are you guys going with your friends from San Diego or L.A.?
Vacation was just a trip to the condo in Hollywood, FL so no international travel or anything exciting…just a LOT of relaxing and reading. I finally finished the second book of the North and South trilogy. The closest thing we did to going out was to walk to dinner one night on the boardwalk. Otherwise we dined at home on the balcony, went to bed early, spent time at the gym and walking on the boardwalk every morning, sat around on the beach or by the pool, and caught up on sleep. Geez…I hope that description of my gay vacation lifestyle isn’t too hedonistic for Randy. I wouldn’t want to shock him or anything with activities so clearly decadent and immoral as gay eating, gay reading, gay walking, and the everso straight-to-hell-do-not-pass-the-pearly-gates sinful as gay sleeping in a gay bed with 400-threadcount gay Egyptian cotton sheets.
Thanks for the welcome back JBM. And a hearty AMEN, Sista! You’ve been doing a great job the past 2 days.
By Mara
April 18, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
GOB - they’re in the same chapter of the He-man Woman Haters Club…heh, heh, heh…
By Archie
April 18, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
I am not morphing into Justin. I have never been thru what Justin has been thru. Mara, I have no problem with intellectuals or feminists especially since I often agree with Diane and JBM and they both fit the descriptions quite well. When I mentioned analysis I was referring to the pool example that I used. Mara, you can give any,any opinion you want,I was just commenting that with the example I used it wasn’t necessary to mention my delivery. I was just playing a game of pool and I used that to make a point,albeit simple one. I picked the topic and I asked questions because I wanted to know some things and I wanted to get away from discussion of racial issues. I also wanted to see if some women could be critical of women without making excuses and surprisingly Lozen acknowledged that she may have gender issues. People have been pounding on Justin but when criticism comes their way in the slightest some can’t deal with it. I must make the statement that guys also don’t take instruction when it comes to pool sometimes. The women did respond and answer the questions but I think if we’re going to criticize Chuck,Zack,Justin,myself for not being open-minded then hey, we had better look at ourselves…
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Monica, no problem. You’ll find that I’m a very transparent person - my life is an open book, for the most part.
For clarity, I belong to a “Bible-based” mainstream apostolic/pentecostal church. They don’t have any “new wave” teachings and pretty much think everything is a sin… lol.
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
LOL @ 72John’s Hubbard remark, look over your shoulder for some lawyers coming your way.
welcome back NetB.
okay, a quote, how relevant, reading USNews and World Report:(04.17.06 issue)
Dem Rep. Barney Frank, on (Tom) DeLay’s statement that while he doesn’t like Frank’s open homosexuality, he feels commanded to love the Massachusets Democrat:
I am prepared to release him from the commandment to love me
By Justin
April 18, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
Okay, I am going to start the jokes early…
A guy slices his ball in the woods and goes in to look for it. He meets a girl from the next fairway looking for her ball. They start to chat and have a wonderful little conversation. She suddenly says to him, ” You know… you look like my third husband. “He says, “Oh yeah?”, and then asks her how many times she’s been married. “Twice,” she replies.
Divorce Lawyer: $10,000 Loss of house, car, etc. $250,000 Small marine motor: $275 Disposable camera: $8 Sending your ex-wife a picture of you boating in her family heirloom dining room table…PRICELESS!
Q. What do you call a woman who has lost 95% of her intelligence? A. Divorced
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Julia! You’re beautiful.
NetB, I was just holding it down until you got back! LOL… I was going to say I don’t know what I’d do without you and RF here, but I do know: I’d leave! LOL! You guys are darned near perfect, to me.
Monica, your 1:39 is so on point.
By GOB
April 18, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Archie - Justin is only being pounded on for two reasons. The first is that he continues to make huge sweeping generalizations about women. He will follow saying he doesnt mean all, but will then go and say something like “women only marry so they can get their hooks in a man’s wallet.”
The other reason is becuase he hasnt been able to talk about anything but how evil women are and how unfair the courts and child support are.
And the cut-and-paste books…THat is the third reason
By Nikita
April 18, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Ditto:
What’s the difference between a lawyer and a catfish? One is an ugly, scum sucking bottom-feeder and the other is a fish.
What’s the difference between God and a lawyer? God doesn’t think he’s a lawyer.
What’s the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead lawyer in the road? Vultures will eat the skunk.
Why should lawyers be buried 100 feet deep? Because deep down, they’re really good people.
How do you get a lawyer out of a tree? Cut the rope.
How many personal injury lawyers does it take to change a light bulb? Three — one to turn the bulb, one to shake him off the ladder, and the third to sue the ladder company.
A lawyer and an engineer were fishing in the Caribbean. The lawyer said “I’m here because my house burned down and everything I owned was destroyed by the fire. The insurance company paid for everything.” “That’s quite a coincidence”, said the engineer, “I’m here because my house and all my belongings were destroyed by a flood, and my insurance company also paid for everything.” The lawyer looked somewhat confused. “How do you start a flood?”, he asked.
A man took a trip out West after a harrowing divorce proceeding. He stopped in a bar, and after a few drinks, stated to no one in particular, “Lawyers are horses’ asses.” One of the locals spoke up on hearing this: “Mister, you’d better watch what you say. You’re in horse country.”
As Mr. Smith was on his death bed, he attempted to formulate a plan that would allow him to take at least some of his considerable wealth with him. He called for the three men he trusted most - his lawyer, his doctor, and his clergyman. He told them, “I’m going to give you each $30,000 in cash before I die. At my funeral, I want you to place the money in my coffin so that I can try to take it with me.”
All three agreed to do this and were given the money. At the funeral, each approached the coffin in turn and placed an envelope inside.
While riding in the limousine back from the cemetery, the clergyman said, “I have to confess something to you fellows. Brother Smith was a good churchman all his life, and I know he would have wanted me to do this. The church needed a new baptistery very badly, and I took $10,000 of the money he gave me and bought one. I only put $20,000 in the coffin.” The physician then said, “Well, since we’re confiding in one another, I might as well tell you that I didn’t put the full $30,000 in the coffin either. Smith had a disease that could have been diagnosed sooner if I had this very new machine, but the machine cost $20,000 and I couldn’t afford it then. I used $20,000 of the money to buy the machine so that I might be able to save another patient. I know that Smith would have wanted me to do that.” The lawyer then said, “I’m ashamed of both of you. When I put my envelope into that coffin, it held my personal check for the full $30,000.”
By Justin
April 18, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Archie, I wouldn’t wish what I have been through on anyone.
No Archie isn’t morphing into me and I agree with him that it is hard for some of you to take criticism.
By RF
April 18, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
400-threadcount gay Egyptian cotton sheets. DANG, I’m jealous. I do good to have 250 thread count!! Must be nice! But you know, those 250 count get pretty soft after you’ve washed them 500 times!!
JBM- just imagine me sitting in the pew, rocking back and forth with the big funeral home fan just a swingin’ while I say “uh-hmmmm” and “tell ‘em preacher!”
By Justin
April 18, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
Bachelors know more about women than married men; if they didn’t they’d be married too. H. L. Mencken
How can a woman be expected to be happy with a man who insists on treating her as if she were a perfectly normal human being. Oscar Wilde
The secret of a happy marriage remains a secret. Henry Youngman
By Mara
April 18, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
And what exactly were we supposed to be critical of these women for doing, Archie? For not hopping-to when criticized? For not accepting criticism without question? For not having the house clean and dinner ready when Hubby gets home from a hard day at the office, even though she was home all day long? First of all, there’s nothing wrong with taking criticism with a grain of salt. In fact, it’s probably smart to think your way through things before you accept them as valid. So I don’t see anything there to criticize, but then, I am a woman…
Second, laziness is non-gendered. If you want criticism by gender, you need to specify a gender-dependant trait. I have no more respect for a lazy woman than I do a lazy man.
By Mara
April 18, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
GOB - well explained ‘bout Justin. Good post.
By candide
April 18, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
Slap anyone who quotes the Bible at you!
By Justin
April 18, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
GOB, not all women are evil but when the divorce attorney sees dollar signs and starts whispering in your ear, the majority of you change and go for the jugular! Do your assigned reading…
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/03/28/black-marriage/
www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JennniferRobackMorse/2006/03/27/191341.html
By GOB
April 18, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
GOB, not all women are evil but when the divorce attorney sees dollar signs and starts whispering in your ear, the majority of you change and go for the jugular!
So women aren’t all evil, but the majority are either so greedy, or so dumb that it is that easy for a divorce lawyer to manipulate them?
I am a man, and can clearly see through the BS you continue to post. At some point in your life, you are going to have to move on, or realize that whining and complaining arent going to solve anything.
By Justin
April 18, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Actually many of them are greedy (not dumb), that is why the divorce lawyers can manipulate them. The women try to protect their “standard of living” or use the children stating the “children are used to a standard of living”. Aren’t the children entitled to a similar “standard of living” at the father’s home also?
I’ll move on when divorce laws become fair and the court stop allowing my ex to use the children as pawns.
By Jack
April 18, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
What is the difference between a lawyer lying dead in the road and a skunk laying dead in the road?
There are skid marks in front of the skunk.
By Susie
April 18, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
I think this is nuts. There literally ARE “no-fault” divorces. I know it’s cliche, I got married way too young to know what I was getting myself into. I was too young to understand that people go through changes as they get older, and there was no way I could see that there would ever be a time when my husband and me wouldn’t be together. And we gave it 18 years, so no one can say we didn’t try to make it work! The truth is, as we grew UP, we grew apart. There wasn’t ever any really bad fighting with us, but there was always a sense of us not getting along. Denying it for years didn’t make it go away. Counseling went nowhere.
We decided to get divorced last year and have been for about 8 months now. If anything, our kids seem to have some sense of “relief,” for lack of a better word.
My ex and I get along better than we EVER have, and we still do stuff with our kids together. My friend asked me what our secret was, and I thought about it for a minute and shrugged and said, “we don’t hate each other?” And we don’t. We just couldn’t live together. Our kids are happier now than they’ve ever been, they see their dad anytime they want to. He pretty much gets them every weekend if he wants to, and he usually does.
Our divorce was a completely mutual decision. NO one was at “fault.” We sat down and wrote out everything we wanted our divorce papers to say, (including a “morality clause,”)took them to an attorney, and said “here, file it.” And that was that. We didn’t even have to go to court. (we did have to go to the parenting classes, though.)
By Jack
April 18, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
“I need to get back to cool, cool, rain”
This one is tougher. Who did it?
By Scalia
April 18, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
It’s the same old battle. I really wonder if adulterers like Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich, many other politicians, and common people on the street are bludgeoned the same way. How about the liars? And the killers? Are they constantly reminded of their sins? Do people go to the jails and constantly tell the convicted murders that they are murders and that they are going to hell? Just an interesting thought.
And Netbanker, I love the 400 count Egyptian cotton sheets. I started me thinking of a North African motif for a room with Moroccan windows and Egyptian art.
By lozen
April 18, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
Mara, I really appreciate you!
Okay, Justin, please tell me what you think you accomplish by continually beating us over the head with this? The people who agree with you, agree already. The people who realize we are hearing only one side of a two-sided story, still think we’ve only heard one side of the story which always has two sides. You seem to have gotten through to Archie who now is seemingly wanting to pit the women against you/he/Zack/Chuck etc.
It has been suggested that you go to a divorce support group; very good suggestion. It has been suggested that you move on; I would never tell you that because each of us moves on when we are ready. But I am getting tired of your continuing generalizations about “evil” women. Just as people get tired of generalizations about men and call us on it.
Archie: It’s beginning to seem to me that you are trying your best to pit women on this blog against other women we don’t even know. Brooks, who had an affair with Campbell, so what? Women who don’t cook and clean. Big deal. I will never criticize the actions of my sisters in general and try not to criticize other women in particular (unless they’re religious lunatics or people like that lawyer who posted such a snotty thing this morning). We have been pitted against each other far too much in the past. “Good” women hate “bad” women. Stay at home mothers are pitted against working outside the home mothers on tv. I am a feminist and my sympathies, loyalty, compassion are first of all for other women. (That doesn’t mean I have no sympathy, loyalty, compassion for men.) Women aren’t perfect and don’t have to be. We all make mistakes; we’re all human. Your posts have been making me uncomfortable but I didn’t realize exactly why until now.
By Eirik
April 18, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
The Who
By Zack
April 18, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Ms. Glass,
You’re not God. I’m not God. No one else on this earth is God. WE don’t determine truth; we either adhere to it, or we don’t. WE have no jurisdiction in this department. WE don’t tell God what is sinful and what isn’t. Truth doesn’t evolve over time, just like we, as humans, do not. No, we don’t define marriage on our own. In the court system, we can pass legislation, yes, but we can’t support it with reason. We don’t leave it up to our imaginations to define what marriage is. We can tell ourselves all day long—until we’re half as in denial as you are—that gender roles do not exist and that homosexuality is a normal, natural lifestyle, but doing so changes none of the truth.
Unfortunately, many people kid themselves as you do. Many say “life” is defined any way the mother in question chooses to define it. Again, not true.
Ms. Glass, I’m sure you did well in school and on standardized tests, etc., etc.. Your intelligence level is fine, but your worldview is completely off. When you try to put man in God’s role, you’re trying to do the impossible, and the result is a bunch of absurd, manmade ideologies. I’d say you and Ms. Feldhahn are probably equally intelligent. The main reason her essays are always better is because her worldview is right.
—clausentowashington@yahoo.com
By Justin
April 18, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Susie, it is great the two of you came together and settled everything amicably. Kudos to you and your ex!
lozen, that is the problem with most women. You support each other even when you’re wrong. Women aren’t perfect and don’t have to be but you expect men to be perfect. My posts make you uncomfortable because you know women do have the upper hand in divorce.
By Justin
April 18, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
At least this week I am topic…
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
I’ll move on when divorce laws become fair and the court stop allowing my ex to use the children as pawns
Justin, then I think you are going to be dwelling on this for a long long time.
By Susie
April 18, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the Kudos, Justin…
Women don’t always support each other when we are wrong. Sometimes women don’t support each other when they are right. If you think you’ve been treated badly by a woman, you ain’t seen nothing! Women are usually meaner to each other than to anyone else! Just something I’ve observed (from about the 6th grade on to the present day!)
By Jack
April 18, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Eirik. That was for Mara. See if you can stump her. (She’s good)
By Mara
April 18, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Dang, Eirik! Good job. My internal jukebox was stuck on UB40’s Red Red Wine and I couldn’t pull this one out! Ya stumped be Jack LOL!!!
Thanks, lozen. like you say, nobody is perfect but it’s nice to be appreciated :^P
By Julia
April 18, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
What is the Lord like?
Psalm 145:8 The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.
Jesus is speaking here:
Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
For Chuck to consider: (sorry, kind of lengthy)
1 Peter 3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: 9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: 11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.
13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? 14But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; 16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
By GOB
April 18, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
My posts make you uncomfortable because you know women do have the upper hand in divorce.
They make me uncomfortable because after a month, I have heard every single thing you could possibly have to say on this topic, yet every week, you post it all again. And again. And again. And again….
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
LMAO @ At least this week I am (on) topic
yes, you are, indeed you are.
where you discussing this when the topic was soda cans should require obesity warnings? rhetorical…LOL
was she on the fuller side? from too much Coca-Cola? LOL
By Netbanker
April 18, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
RF…do you have any idea how hard it is to find gay Egyptian cotton since homosexuality is illegal in Egypt?! And I forgot to mention that they’re sateen so that made it even harder because those Sateens hardly ever admit they’re gay even though they love naked boys sleeping between them. Seriously though, I got those sheets at Stein Mart for $90. Granny told me to only get 2 sets of sheets and to spend the extra for good ones because they’ll be nice and soft as well as last for years and years. Stick with me and I’ll have you stylin’ and sleeping in luxury for next to nothing! (or in nothing ;) Now it’s time for a pop quiz…and this first question does stretch back a few months….where do we purchase our clothes during their end of season clearance? And where will we start buying our sheets (or telling our family to buy them when we ask for them for Christmas…which is how I got my first set)?
I have a picture of you in the church pew, but I’ve got to tell you that in my head you’ve also got on a big ol’ church lady hat with plenty of feathers and netting. I can’t help it it just goes with the image you painted.
Here are a few quotes that seem appropriate today. The first two are for Justin and the last for Mara, Kimberly, Lozen, and Whiley:
“What would men be without women? Scarce, sir..mighty scarce.” - Mark Twain
“By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you’ll become happy; if you get” a bad one, you’ll become a philosopher. - Socrates
“The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness and kindness, can be trained to do most things.” - Jilly Cooper
And before I forget, Renee…kisses to you too! Sending warm sunny thoughts your way!
By Eirik
April 18, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Oops..hope I didn’t butt in…
How about this one Mara…
“I’ll be in my basement room, with a needle and a spoon”
By Monica
April 18, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
“Stay close to me…”
Okay Mara, now I’ve got UB40 in my head - wasn’t that such a great song!
By RF
April 18, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Net- Dillard’s of course. But, since I don’t watch TV much and rarely have time to read the paper, I tend to miss the really good sales. Did I miss Dillard’s again?? I LOVE Stein Mart and like Tuesday Morning, but haven’t been in a while. Sounds like I need to go!! Do the sheets come with the boys between them?? ;-)
By Mara
April 18, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
Eirik, I believe that would be the Stones, man!!
Ok, my turn:
Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars Now every time I’m weak Words scream from my arm
By God
April 18, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
To Zack
I am God and you displease me
Now bring me some cookies..
By Renee
April 18, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
I even liked that song lol.
By Mara
April 18, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
Too funny, Net, LOL!! It’s all in the training! LMAO!!
Yeah, Monica. I was a late-comer to UB40 music, but I made up for it in enthusiasms :^)
By Jack
April 18, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Mara. I admit I don’t know much of the new stuff. I am from the “78” days. LOL
By Mara
April 18, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
Quittin’ time!!!! Wooohoooo!!! later, taters…
By Eirik
April 18, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Mara,
Excellent…Sticky Fingers..(I just bought it for my ipod).
(I’m sure seeing the album cover and inset as a teenager had something to do with the way I turned out…)
I’m stumped…sounds sort of metal-ish though…Black Sabbath..Metallica…I’m really reaching..
By Tim
April 18, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
Julia… thanks for the early birthday wishes… right back at ya :)
Netb… sounds like my kind of vacation… the last two years we have gone to Ft. Lauderdale… and laid on the beach or by the pool all day… go to dinner… then come back and go to sleep around 10 (I know y’all are soooo jealous of the excitement in my life!!)… this year the only difference is we will be in Mexico so I’ll be laying on the beach sayin cervesa por favor… or as I shop… quanto es :)… our friends in LA aren’t going with us… they had actually looked into going before even talking to us but decided on P’town during the 4th… which is funny because we looked into that too before we decided on PV… oh and on the sheets… go to Stein Mart!!! we got 1000 thread count for $98
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
Mara - Queensryche, but only thanks to google. LOL
i did not start doing metal and Metallica untl 1992, except for Black Sabbath/Deep Purple way way way back.
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
LLOL @ God wanting cookies!!! That’s hilarious! Almost made me spit my chewed up Ritz bits all over my monitor!
RF - I can SO picture you waving me on in the pews… I even see the boys fidgeting next to you, asking, “how many more pages does she have???? She keeps flipping…” LOL!
Oh snap! I used to love Stein Mart… haven’t been there in ages!
By Tony Zizza
April 18, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Today must be a strange day indeed as I must admit both Shaunti and Diane make some good comments regarding no fault divorce.
There’s little doubt that the folks who benefit most from adults who can’t make a marriage work are lawyers and the mental health field. One problem I see with no fault divorce is that it usually is more the fault of one person that a marriage ends than the other. I think there needs to be more teeth to an uncontested divorce as it pertains to finances.
Then again, when a marriage ends, damage control is key no matter who is more at fault than the other.
Finally, the answer isn’t more counseling for adults and children affected by the end of a marriage or government imposed waiting periods. The true answer is for both genders to be equally more aware of who they are really getting married to. When adults exercise better judgement with who they get involved with, everyone wins.
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
oh ,that was Eirik with the Queensryche, sorry, Mara posted the lyrics. missed all that 80/s hair-band metal stuff.
i was doing ‘punk/alternative’ rock in the 80s/ the infamous KROQ/Pasadena.
By Justin
April 18, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
Susie, that is why I will never let my kids see that movie with Lindsay Lohan…mean girls or jawbreaker…
I wish you could talk to my ex…it would be okay if she would stop emotionally damaging the children and stop being vengeful…
By Jack
April 18, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
Tim. After your birthday, I’ll still have socks older than you. LOL
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
I walked into a SteinMart after driving by several for several years, I thought it was a hobby-store. ended up with a belt, I don’t really even wear.
By lozen
April 18, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
Justin, I was speaking to Archie not you when I said his posts made me uncomfortable.
By The72John
April 18, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
LLOL @ God wanting cookies!!! That’s hilarious! Almost made me spit my chewed up Ritz bits all over my monitor!
Well, often when people eat my Butterfinger cookies, they start talking loudly to and about God, so it only makes sense he would want some for himself.
By Tim
April 18, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
lol @ Jack… that may be true… and I don’t know you, but I would be willing to bet that you could still hang with the best of em!
By Just Being Me
April 18, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
LLOL @ God wanting cookies!!! That’s hilarious! Almost made me spit my chewed up Ritz bits all over my monitor!
RF - I can SO picture you waving me on in the pews… I even see the boys fidgeting next to you, asking, “how many more pages does she have???? She keeps flipping…” LOL!
Oh snap! I used to love Stein Mart… haven’t been there in ages!
By Whiley
April 18, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
Please join us & post YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY.
Who wants to bet Justin is completely full of S@#$#@ & was probably busted cheating and/or arrested for domestic abuse. How much ya want to bet his wife did everything & he was one of those “absent” fathers.
The TRUTH is more than likely NOT ANYTHING like Justin claims. I’ve doubted a lot of his story from the beginning anyway. I never believed he was “Justin”.
“Mean Girls” is a comedy, get over yourself.
By Tim
April 18, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
I love “Mean Girls” it’s so funny… I was planning on watching it on my portable dvd player during the flight to PV… and then after that… probably start watching The Golden Girls season 2
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Mean Girls is a fun movie awBreaker as well, a recommended flick there, not quite q comedy but….
By Whiley
April 18, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
lol TIM ! Funny movies are still funny even if they are geared toward the younger people. Did you know the blonde girl from Mean Girls was in The Notebook too? Wasn’t the other Mean Girl in the LOST IN SPACE remake?
By Jack
April 18, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Thanks Tim. I can. Happy Birthday to you!
By lozen
April 18, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
Why Justin, when did I ever say I expected men to be perfect? I thought I had just said, “We’re all human and we all make mistakes.”
By Randy
April 18, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
Got a question for Lozen, you said earlier you are reading a book about “Misquoted Jesus”. Why do you feel the need to read books about something you don’t believe??? I mean, I don’t believe in Buddism, Space Aliens nor Wicca but I don’t feel the need to try to confirm my beliefs with books that say that they aren’t real. If you really don’t believe in the Church, what’s putting pressure on you to try to stay in that belief system(non-believer)??? You see to be fighting it major.
By Chilao
April 18, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
sorry, s/b JAWBREAKER, got a phone call and meeting call.
By Tim
April 18, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
Whiley… I have not seen any of those other movies… I just think it’s great that the blonde chick could predict the weather with her boobs… what a talent!! :)
Jack… thanks!
By Archie
April 18, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this
Mara,”I have no more respect for a lazy woman than I do a lazy man” that’s a good comment but you did intellectualize my pool example way too much. I am not pitting good woman vs bad woman either. Lozen you may be uncomfortable with some of my criticisms and really it does make my point. I wanted opinions and I got them. I do find it interesting that so many complain about housework from men but when that conversation turns to women all of sudden people are uncomfortable. Lozen you answered the questions just fine so what’s the problem? Not one man has said all women are evil but of course we know Justin has some problems but I asked questions and gave my opinion and now some are uncomfortable—interesting. I have already thanked the ladies for their responses. It is interesting that I never implied laziness was by gender. I have already given my point of reference. There are no generalities. I would like to hear even more responses on why the other woman should not feel apologetic.
By Netbanker
April 18, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this
Good work on the quiz RF! I was soooo disappointed when the Stein Mart at North Dekalb Mall closed. I don’t even know where the closest one would be now. I’ve got to try Tuesday Morning. Heard good things about them, but just haven’t gone. I’m due for a trip to one or the other to restock the “Oh sh!t, we need a quick host/hostess or acquaintance gift and don’t have time” shelf. LOL at your question! Silly goose, the boy is the purchaser of the sheets. You have to promise to sleep naked or they won’t sell them too you and you have to sign the release form…”Naked boys not included. Manufacturer is not responsible for the quality of any boys supplied by the consumer or their agents or assigns. Manufacturer does not accept responsibility for the quality or quantity of any activities engaged in while alone or otherwise occupied.”
Mara…dogs and men are just like. It’s all a matter of proper training and neither likes to be punished. Positive reinforcement training techniques work best especially when treats are involved. I’ll just bet that Jack can back me up on that. [grin]
By RF
April 18, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this
Randy- it’s not about confirming your beliefs, it’s about checking all relevant information. Lozen, like most of us, was probably raised in a good, church-going, God-fearing home where you never questioned the preacher or his interpretation of the “good book”. Once you grow up, some people begin thinking for themselves (those that don’t drink the Kool-Aid), and realize there’s sooooo much missing from most conservative pulpits these days. I read LOTS of stuff about lots of religions. Not to refute or challenge, but just to know all I can. Why are you fundamentalists sooo afraid of people asking questions and checking you out?? Afraid we just might see the cracks and flaws in your little boxes full of Jesus?
By Ken
April 19, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this
RF… Is it possible that individuals can make the choice that nothing is missing from what you call “conservative pulpits”??? Perhaps many of these people have attempted to refute or challenge and return back to “the good book” b/c their findings lead them back.
I don’t think anyone of faith is afraid that you will find cracks or flaws in anything. By definition, faith is a belief in something that cannot be totally explained or reasoned.
Your implication that people with more conservative beliefs simply “drink the Kool-Aid” is just as appalling as the folks on the BLOG who indicate they know exactly what God thinks or says. You’re both being far too narrow in your thinking.
God is far bigger than anything humanity can dream of and there are individuals far more intelligent, self-reflective and critical than any of us who have found themselves led to Christ’s church.
By Jack
April 19, 2006 08:08 AM | Link to this
Yes Net, when I’m a good boy, I get a low calorie, high moral treat. Great insentive for being good.
By GOB
April 19, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this
Got a question for Lozen, you said earlier you are reading a book about “Misquoted Jesus”. Why do you feel the need to read books about something you don’t believe??? I mean, I don’t believe in Buddism, Space Aliens nor Wicca but I don’t feel the need to try to confirm my beliefs with books that say that they aren’t real. If you really don’t believe in the Church, what’s putting pressure on you to try to stay in that belief system(non-believer)??? You see to be fighting it major.
Not to speak for anyone else, but the reason I try to learn as much about this stuff as possible is because it has, and continues to have such an enourmous impact on history. Considering how many people try to use the bible to justify what they do, and how they are attempting to control other people’s lives, it is vitally important to understand what it really says, as well as how it came to be in its present form. Belief or non-belief are irrelavent. The daily impact is there regardless.
By Ken
April 19, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this
GOB… Do you spend just as much time reviewing books and opinions on Islam??? If you are studying for a purely historical value then I would argue that the religion of Islam is either on par or even exceeds the impact that Christianity has on the entire world.
By GOB
April 19, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this
Ken - I didn’t say it was for purely historical value, but that I am interested because of the historical impact AND the continuing impact. I don’t spend as much time studying islam, but the last time I checked, the islamic right didn’t control the entire federal government and most state governments.
There is also something to be said about broadening your horizons. What is gained by only studying things you already believe to be true?
By RF
April 19, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this
Ken- that’s part of my point. Many times people ask questions and find the truth right back where they started. Many, like Randy and others, seem to be incensed by the fact that people would question man’s interpretation of God’s will or word, and that seeking answers anywhere but the Bible is blasphemous. I’m not trying to be narrow-minded, I’m just tired of being brow beaten by some of the more conservative here who seem to think that questioning the Bible or God is inherently wrong. Some people think that human questions imply a lack of faith and trust in God. I think it’s just the opposite. And I agree with you that asking those questions can, and often does lead the questioner to a better understanding and firmer faith. Randy seems to think it’s unintelligent to ask questions and seek answers.
By Bruce
April 19, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
JBM, I am really sorry to bring this up but some of your comments from yesterday have had me thinking all night long and I have a question based some of the things you said.
Do you, as an ordained minister, believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God?
By RF
April 19, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this
Manufacturer is not responsible for the quality of any boys supplied by the consumer or their agents or assigns. Manufacturer does not accept responsibility for the quality or quantity of any activities engaged in while alone or otherwise occupied.”
Dang legal clauses. You just don’t get as much for your buck these days.
RF - I can SO picture you waving me on in the pews… I even see the boys fidgeting next to you, asking, “how many more pages does she have???? She keeps flipping…” LOL!
Two words for you JBM—CHILDREN’S CHURCH As my granny would say “that’s the best thing to come along since sliced bread!” LOL
By Jack
April 19, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this
The bible was not written by God. It was written by men. Mortal men. Men lie.
By Mara
April 19, 2006 08:54 AM |