DBoon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 01:29 PM
Original message |
AP - Conservatives Urge Closer Look at Marriage |
|
NEW YORK (AP) -- "Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh, soul-searching look at the institution. ... "When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor who writes frequently about family issues. ... "If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated - if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness - then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."
Link: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=307082&category=&BCCode=&newsdate=11/21/2004This is why gay rights matter to heterosexuals. The "deviant lifestyle choice" the right wing attacks may include YOU next time!
|
wtmusic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 01:31 PM
Response to Original message |
1. 'Deliberate childlessness' -- OMFG |
|
Maybe this dude should mind his own fucking business
|
skooooo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. yep, that's what caught my eye.... |
|
Everyone needs to pop out a baby or two I guess.
|
hlthe2b
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. Good God, that one got me too......Not that there is not a litany to abhor |
|
in his comments, but "deliberate childlessness?"
What are they going to do to the "intentional single..." Cast us on the waters as witches?
Have we always had so many nuts in this country (or are they just getting a wider voice now?)
|
DuaneBidoux
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
19. They feel "empowered" now. But the nut cases have always been there. |
haele
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
9. Geez, sex is only for procreation, right - so marriage - |
|
-Marriage is only to have legal sex - in which to procreate, right?
How does one determine what is deliberate childlessness in a marriage? A couple may marry to "have children one day" and find out they can't - so do they just dissolve that marriage, no matter what they might have invested in that relationship? If someone's spouse leaves them after they get "fixed" or dies late in life, they can't re-marry, because there may not be any children from that second marriage?
feh. I think these opinions are from a "dude" who wants to cut out legal civil union status and economic benefits for couples who don't meet his strict relationship guideline.
But on the off chance this is totally based on a psuedo-Judeo-Christian basis, does he also privatly promotes all those good, old fashioned biblical penalties that go along with precieved sex/personal enjoyment crimes? What next, Professor? Prison - errr, "re-education camps" for masturbators? Forced marriages contracted out by the father/male relative of the female?
(Shakes head) Does he really want to go there, or is he just blowing virtuous smoke for his fellow co-"religionists"?
Haele
|
wtmusic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
17. I believe there are some deep-seated issues here |
|
and they have nothing to do with social values or even religion, and everything to do with a seriously repressed upbringing
|
yellowcanine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
16. What - they are going to outlaw contraception/sterilization now? |
|
"The Handmaid's Tale" may be closer than we think.
|
The empressof all
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 01:31 PM
Response to Original message |
|
This sure is the right direction for Conservatives. Let's ban divorce, prosecute Adultry and banish childless couples.
|
ooglymoogly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
15. and only in the missionary position and everything else should be a |
|
heinous felony. by by all you stupid fks that voted for this fruitcake. all the world art queer save thee and thow and even thow art a little queer.
|
DuaneBidoux
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
20. Yea' let's go back to the days when women where chattel |
|
and women put up with hundreds of beatings over the course of a lifetime because they couldn't get out of a marriage. Yea' that's the ticket!
The problem is that I'm now hearing stuff we used to be sarcastic about earlier being seriously proposed by these loons.
|
Don Claybrook
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 01:32 PM
Response to Original message |
3. They want to address "deliberate childlessness"? |
|
Time to dust off The Handmaid's Tale, I guess. What a creepy bunch of people.
|
tridim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 01:32 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I urge a closer look at bigoted Conservative policy |
|
I like Randi Rhodes' idea. Outlaw ALL marriage.
|
The Zanti Regent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 01:43 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Will that apply to Newt, Armey, Dole, and Giuliani, too? |
|
You know, those Republicans who dump their wives for younger mistresses?
|
Wright Patman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 01:48 PM
Response to Original message |
|
this doesn't apply to me since God made me incapable of bearing children.
If he means to apply this to males as well, it is a bit unfair as all reproductive decisions are currently in the hands of women--and I don't have a problem with that.
I do have a problem with being made to feel guilty about something over which I have no control.
|
cabboll
(2 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 01:57 PM
Response to Original message |
|
"address cohabitation" what the hell does that mean?
|
mcscajun
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. Outlaw "living together", of course. |
|
Edited on Sun Nov-21-04 02:01 PM by mcscajun
We can't have anyone Fornicating in apartments and homes where the mailbox doesn't say "Mr. & Mrs. So-and-So" now, can we?
A conservative wingnut in Utah...gee...there's a surprise.
On Edit: with exceptions and apologies to our blue Utah compatriots.
|
newyawker99
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-22-04 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
donco6
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 02:11 PM
Response to Original message |
12. What are "family-friendly workplace policies"? |
|
Are "family men" going to get more time off work than childless folk? Higher pay? Better insurance benefits?
Even now, I have collegues who get their first person coverage paid by contract, as well as full family coverage. Being childless and "unmarried" (don't tell my partner of 8 years), I get first person. Is that discrimination, or "family-friendly"?
|
DBoon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. bed checks to make sure you aren't cohabiting? |
|
Your med plans won't cover contraception of any sort.
Preference in hiring "married with children" will become legal - potential employers can ask about family status and use it to base hiring decisions.
Think of every legal protection you have to keep your family business out of your employer's nose, and imagine they all vanish.
They will never GIVE more benefits to traditional families - they will only make life difficult for everyone else.
|
dand
(636 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-21-04 03:09 PM
Response to Original message |
13. Out comes the brown shirts and the jack boots, |
|
God is speaking directly to George the second.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 10:33 AM
Response to Original message |