Everyone would be much better off if we had such laws and enforced them both legally (a sheriffs shotgun) and socially (shivaree's). My grandfather (moms dad) was a local preacher. It wasn't unknown for him to bring a young couple by his home and announce "Preacher, this couple wants to get married! '"they had been caught living together outside of marriage). In due course grandpa would conduct the marriage. My mother and one of her brothers would serve as the witnesses. Lots of good marriages started out that way.
Oh, how backwoods and backward !! NO, everyone would not be better off being treated like livestock.. Lots of marriages were miserable that way, too. Your idea of treating humans like livestock is quite sickening... I bet if you had someone pick out your spouse for you , you'd object....but it's OK for others
What makes you think they didn't? And how is this treating humans like livestock? The couples were the ones that decided to pair up/hook up in the first place. Decisions like that have consequences.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Oh, how backwoods and backward !! NO, everyone would not be better off being treated like livestock.. Lots of marriages were miserable that way, too. Your idea of treating humans like livestock is quite sickening... I bet if you had someone pick out your spouse for you , you'd object....but it's OK for others ? Where's your proof they did? I have proof in that 50% of marriages end in divorce. DUH, being FORCED to marry ( breed with) another human is treating people like livestock. And who TF are YOU to decide what those consequences should be? It looks like you think having sex should be punished....very odd but telling
50% of marriages end in divorce. But 50% of all people do not get divorced. How is that possible? Easy, multiple divorces, remarriages and divorces. I'll give a scenario. Albert, Barton and Charles all get married. Albert and Barton each stay married the rest of their lives. Charles gets divorce remarried then divorced again. Thus in this population you have four marriages and two divorces. A divorce rate of 50%. Yet two out of the three (67%) remained married for life I was specifically referring to my own marriage which was ultimately arranged by my aunt and my future wifes oldest sister who lived across from each other. I freely admit that I like the idea of arranged marriages. I think it helps to have two families both pulling for the success of a couples marriage.
I can imagine the yells of outrage from men if they were oppressed in this way. I hadn't realised I was talking to an anomaly. Very weird experience. Unfortunately it is when enough dangerous people like you get too much power, it is always women who are the victims. Is misogyny a requirement of those who like to punish women?
I have no interest in punishing women. If there was a way to save babies (fetuses) without inconveniencing women I would take that option.
So women are collateral damage, and have no equal rights when it comes to making her own decisions about her own life? While I 7nd3rstand the "my body my right" argument, the important one for me is "my life is for me and me alone" to decide. And as a fully formed human being she has as much right to that as does a man. As for 4igjts, enshrined in national and international law, look at ot this way. If abortions are legal, the woman has a choice. She can choose what SHE wants to do. When abortion is illegal, her choices as a human being are severely restricted. That defies the principle of equality. And I meant what I said about the consequences. Womwn will not put up with such constrictions on her freedoms. Quack doctors are looking forward to dusting off the kitchen tables in some anonymous house, buying in brown paper envelopes for the cash and will, as before, do untold harm to women who dare not tell why they are in hospital , bleeding profusely and even rendered sterile through infection. Is this what you mean by protecting life? Finally, no religious minority should ever be allowed to direct national law. You'll be allowing homosexuals to be thrown off tall buildings if you go down that route and remain consistent. Now to avoid repeating myself in the face of opposition who cannot reason past their own fables, I am out. I have to say I have heard of the religious right and how they have been "courted" by politicians who are as venally sinful as they come. They are willing to offer you power in/through law if you vote for them. A pact born off the devil and reminiscent of Faust. And we all know what happened to him. Like any religious ism, it rejects equality and someone is always the target because isms want power. Almost all religious isms make women a target. Make them inferior. Well don't expect Western women to accept that. And happily, your POTUS won't either.
You missed the reference. I said the principle of religion having any power in determining the content of law takes you directly to such conclusions. If one faith can so influence national law, you have opened the potential gates that allows another one to do the same. Particularly when a politician wants votes. What is to stop one of them offering a couple of places on the supreme court (assuming they are available) to imams and therefore securing Muslim votes? Trump did it for "christians" and established a precedence. Are you beginning to see the enormous dangers of involving people of some moral conviction, called a faith, in lawmaking? Once that door is open it let's in all sorts of things you hadn't thought of. And unless God has given you the power to read the future, you have no idea what may go through that door.
That wasn’t Trump - it want even Mitchie it was the Federalist Society https://www.npr.org/2018/06/28/6244...ty-and-how-does-it-affect-supreme-court-picks
Western civilization is in a steep decline into total corruption, depravity, and nihilism. It will disappear as a civilization unless we have a patriotic conservative Christian renewal. Fortunately, we can see early signs of that throughout Europe and the U.S.
Seems I can't write c@ck, either. I can write prick, dick, etc., but the vagina can only be referred to by formal name. I can't write pu$$y, c×nt, tw@t, etc. I'm with George Carlin on the use of words. This is censorship, IMO. I do want to use the word "pussified" now and then.
The change came about in 2016 after a certain politician was taped boasting about grabbing inappropriate areas of the female anatomy
You're proving all my points here, thank you. As I've said, it is the Christian right trying to dissolve the constitution and replace it with dogma from their "buy bull." It's unAmerican to deny rights to pregnant women that the rest of us enjoy. There is nothing patriotic about denying them their right to privacy in accordance with the 4th Amendment. Usually I'd tell you to look it up, but since you seem reluctant to consider anything that isn't already in your ideology, I'll point it out. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Allow me to interpret for you: "Secure in their persons" means that if I'm pregnant, I have the right to keep my medical condition private. "Against unreasonable searches" means that the government does not get to see my private medical information. Reverting to the "dark ages" of female subjugation in this country would be disastrous. Abortion is not a crime because a fetus has no legal status. The only reason you and like-minded subjugators are going after women on this issue is because you know damned well that you cannot make a scientifically based claim of personhood for a fetus, so you're using tactics designed to provoke emotional anti-abortion responses. "They're killing babies!" and other complete bee ess. Instead, you should be advocating for easy access to contraception. I see two possible solutions to the unwanted pregnancy issue (which btw is a lot less of an issue now than it was 50 or 60 years ago). 1. Women and girls could do what you seem to want, which is to abstain from sex altogether. Think about that for a bit ... think about the consequences in modern civilizations. Maybe ask the Chinese how they are solving the very real problem csused by selectively breeding for boy babies ... those little boys become men with the normal male sex drive, but there aren't enough girls for them. 2. Vasectomies are reversible. Every young man should get one.
Since you've revealed yourself as a Christian, could you perhaps answer a couple of questions related to that? I'm not baiting you, these are not "gotcha" questions, just things that have been on my mind due to the Christian take on this issue, and I'd appreciate your civil input as to Christian thinking. If my questions make you uncomfortable, feel free to ignore me. I know that Christians believe that men and women should both refrain from sex until married in the eyes of your god. I can see the sense in that, given that 2,000 years ago, personal hygiene was not what it is today, and they certainly had sexually transmitted diseases back then, so it makes sense as being cautionary. But is it natural? Your bible claims that god made man from his own image, which means that your god is male. Does he have a penis? If so, what does he use it for? There are only two uses that I'm aware of: urination and procreation. Do you believe that god purposely made the penis with nerve endings and blood flow capabilities that give pleasure, in order to promote the urge to procreate? Or did he simply make it utilitarian for the purpose of eliminating waste? God made Eve from Adam's rib according to Genesis. My question about that is very different, and it's something that was pointed out to me by a very Christian woman that I used to work with (and still maintain contact with). There are more that 4,000 nerve endings in the vagina. Your god was kind enough to give women one wee bit, the clitoris, that serves no other purpose that pure pleasure. Does he not want us to use it? My ex husband was a Christian, and he had no answer for that last one. (In case you're wondering, he failed to keep his wedding vows, unlike little atheist me, who has a much stronger moral compass.) You are under no obligation to respond, but I would be interested in your input.
