Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've got a plan. Lets subject those judges to an equal amount of years of random acts of violence by someone claiming to love them, which they are legally bound to, and lets see how fast they change their minds about putting 3 bullets in this drunks head.
Equal justice ought to apply to the 'decision makers' in a court room a little more often. Let it apply to the LE officers calling 911 and getting ignored, or scolded for bothering them, and handed back to the animal. Let it apply to the doctors rolling their eyes about broken bones and never following through with social workers and LE. Treat em and street em. Wash your hands with your conscience.
Put the cross she's carrying on each of their backs by writ. Find out what it is you've made decisions about. We'll call it 'tough love' boot camp for "expert" professionals.
Basically after that Governor James Martin commuted her sentence to time served so it sort of worked out, though not well I agree, personally I liked the court of appeals ruling better. Mainly it is stuff like that which is why I think the OP's idea is crazy.
In other words, Christians rush into marriage more quickly than atheists.
They have to if they're going to hell for touching themselves or fornicating outside the bounds of matrimony. Hormones ought to decide all things, and if you can't think straight because of your hormones, you're just evil.
Atheists don't agree? Well, neither do the overwhelming majority of sane Christians who enjoy Gods gift of complimentary pairs. Then you've got fundies desperately fighting off the temptation of romance with farm animals.
Divorce?
I thought the problem was that people aren't even marrying in the first place?
In any even,I blame men. Aren't they the ones who usually file first?
Its due to our sexualized culture. Men who always want a younger woman,or blame the wife beaucse she got fat after having kids.
Basically after that Governor James Martin commuted her sentence to time served so it sort of worked out, though not well I agree, personally I liked the court of appeals ruling better. Mainly it is stuff like that which is why I think the OP's idea is crazy.
It didn't work at all if another generation of women are ignorant of monsters, the law remains one eyed leaving her with responsibility but not corresponding authority, and persists in legal, social, and religious refusal to allow women the right to defend themselves in any way. They did it in the military too-- of all places you'd think a gal would be permitted to defend herself. Social conservative installed 'experts' decided what was best. Those 'experts' need to be tossed in Rwanda head first too! Let em eat cake.
You know what else 'till death do us part' looks like in real life? It's the 6 mos pregnant woman on line at walmart with welts on her face at 3am dutifully buying 2 suitcases of beer. She's wrong no matter what she does and there is no way out of walking in Eva Brauns shoes save for praying rapture comes sooner. That's politically and religiously acceptable. Praying for the world to end. Think about it. Think long and hard about what is and has been calling itself Christian.
Divorce?I thought the problem was that people aren't even marrying in the first place?.
Good point. The kids out of wedlock problem is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about. You get crucified for daring to mention that it's detrimental to kids, their parents, and society at large.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseygal4u
In any event, I blame men. Aren't they the ones who usually file first?.
You'll have to find some other excuse to blame men. 2 times out of 3 it's women who file for divorce.
It's due to our sexualized culture. Men who always want a younger woman, or blame the wife because she got fat after having kids.
The sexualized culture is a problem. We put too many unrealistic expectations on our partners, but both men & women do that.
As far as the fat thing goes, that is another issue we seriously need to address. The typical stuff that passes for food is not only making us fat (which causes sexual problems like impotence in men), but it's leading to a huge number of cases of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, high blood pressure, etc....diseases that are largely preventable and are driving health care costs through the roof.
the absence of a positive male role model in the home has a devastating effect on children.
the teachings of gloria steinem as to the harmlessness to children from the absence of the father has done great damage to our children. how strange women have chosen the teachings of the political guru steinem over the teachings of behavioral science.
The government has ALWAYS promoted a religious framework for marriage. There is no other framework available. Obviously, this has nothing to do with establishing a compulsory state religion, and the courts (until our own decadent time) have never viewed it as such..
What do you mean there's no other framework available? I don't get that at all. There's a legal framework, isn't there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
Certainly our marriage laws, with their Christian origins, curtail the "free exercise" of religion for some - Mormons and others, for example, who practice polygamy..
As long as all the participants are of the age of majority, they shouldn't, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
The 1st Amendment does have its limits. Apart from a specific religious and cultural context, the 1st amendment would devour itself.
Divorce?
I thought the problem was that people aren't even marrying in the first place?
In any even,I blame men. Aren't they the ones who usually file first?
Its due to our sexualized culture. Men who always want a younger woman,or blame the wife beaucse she got fat after having kids.
Actually, 70% of all divorces are initiated by the wife. Look it up. But I'm sure you'll blame the men anyway.
I respect honest secularists like Judith Wallerstein, Nat Hentoff, and others. The problem with secularism, though, is that its view of marriage is purely uitilitarian. If some other means could be found to attain the desired ends, then marriage is dispensible for the secularist. Furthermore, secularists don't really have a commitment to those "desired ends" apart from their own likes and dislikes. So marriage doesn't have any foundational support from secularism.
Secularism can analyze a culture, but it can't build a culture. That takes religion.
I see your point to an extent. But I'm not sure if that last statement is true. I think a committment to the truth, from a secularist standpoint, could, at least theoretically lead to the same or better results as a religious context. Although I admit, in practice, it hasn't worked out that way. But then, religion is its own can of worms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
