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 |