GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Stubby
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by Stubby »

Well that was an interesting attempt to win the argument. A strange emotion to feel greatly amused by your confusion and deeply disturbed as well.

How is not having sex with with the same gender equal to discrimination or bigotry?

Am I a bigot for never having slept with an Asian or an African?

BIGOTRY:
Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.
(bold is mine)

You exhibit all 3 emotions with respect to gay people. I know you feel some of the same emotions towards other groups not related to your own.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by MSimon »

What ever happened to traditional marriage?

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/03/resp ... -exercise/

It has been outlawed.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by rj40 »

Well this is all very interesting and exciting for me. It looks like the the US is heading in a direction that some folks here don't like and no one here can do much about.

I wonder how institutional marriage has changed over the past several thousand years? MSIMON mentioned some things on his classical values post. When those changes occurred, what happened to the societies of those times? Why did people of those times feel the need to make those changes? I am speaking of things like polygamy, and the man practically owning his wife and all of their combined possessions. Stuff like that.

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by paperburn1 »

Anybody got any extra butter?
:D
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by Diogenes »

Stubby wrote:Well that was an interesting attempt to win the argument. A strange emotion to feel greatly amused by your confusion and deeply disturbed as well.

I would imagine feeling deeply disturbed is a constant experience for you.



Stubby wrote: How is not having sex with with the same gender equal to discrimination or bigotry?

Dude, actions speak louder than words. Presumably you like sex, right? If this is indeed the case, the only plausible reason for not engaging in this sort of sex is because it doesn't meet with your approval. You won't engage in it because you look down on it.

Seriously, what guy turns down sex?

Stubby wrote: Am I a bigot for never having slept with an Asian or an African?

Is it for lack of opportunity or is it because you don't like them?

Stubby wrote: BIGOTRY:
Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.
(bold is mine)


You see, whenever I see the word's "Sexual Orientation" included, I know instantly that this is a modern day re-write of the definition, and is in fact an attempt to push the agenda by REDEFINING what words mean. (A common Liberal tactic.)



Stubby wrote: You exhibit all 3 emotions with respect to gay people. I know you feel some of the same emotions towards other groups not related to your own.

You know that about everyone, and for the simple reason that you are projecting yourself onto others. You are like those puritans of old, who lie awake at night unable to sleep because somewhere someone else is sinning. Your ilk has just redefined what constitutes "sinning."

Modern Liberals seem to think the greatest sin is not following along with their latest fad. You people just get crushed under the wheel every time it revolves, but are too stupid to see the larger history.

Give my regards to Robespierre when you see him.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by Diogenes »

rj40 wrote:Well this is all very interesting and exciting for me. It looks like the the US is heading in a direction that some folks here don't like and no one here can do much about.


Yeah, it's called "destruction." It was a good country while it lasted. Too bad it became so prosperous that it forgot how it got that way.



rj40 wrote:
I wonder how institutional marriage has changed over the past several thousand years? MSIMON mentioned some things on his classical values post. When those changes occurred, what happened to the societies of those times? Why did people of those times feel the need to make those changes? I am speaking of things like polygamy, and the man practically owning his wife and all of their combined possessions. Stuff like that.

Polygamy is a left over of an earlier state of nature. Evolutionarily it makes more sense for a woman to have offspring from a very capable Alpha Male even if she has to share him. Chickens and Apes still operate with this system. We are simply devolving back to a more primitive state.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by Diogenes »

I'll make a prediction right now. Kennedy is going to come out in favor, and it will be a done deal.


As a wit said several years ago, "Why don't we just save a lot of time and ask Kennedy what he thinks?"


Adolphus Huxley was right.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Stubby
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by Stubby »

Digot

It is obvious that your definitions for discrimination and bigotry are vastly different from mine. Since I provided mine, would you kindly supply yours?
It would be quite interesting to compare.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe

palladin9479
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by palladin9479 »

rj40 wrote:Well this is all very interesting and exciting for me. It looks like the the US is heading in a direction that some folks here don't like and no one here can do much about.

I wonder how institutional marriage has changed over the past several thousand years? MSIMON mentioned some things on his classical values post. When those changes occurred, what happened to the societies of those times? Why did people of those times feel the need to make those changes? I am speaking of things like polygamy, and the man practically owning his wife and all of their combined possessions. Stuff like that.
The institution of marriage is nothing more then a special favored spouse status conferred to property. It indicates one of the slaves has more privileges then the rest and may speak for the husband if he so desires. Of course we've moved beyond that as a society through recognizing females and children not as property but as individuals with the same level of rights as males.

Of course it goes much deeper then that, you have to go back to the early tribal days. It's a function that enables the older males to control the younger males by controlling their supply to sex. This was eventually turned into a religious practice with a heavy social penalty associated with disobeying the tribal elders and "marrying" without their approval. It gets deep into power and control over people, basic human nature to form tribes.

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by rj40 »

I guess I am interested in how marriage as an institution has changed over time, and when change occurred, what happened to the society that hosted the institution.

Are there any instances where the change to the institution was roughly equal in scale as gay marriage would be today (not gay marriage back then, but something that would be arguably similar in scale)? What happened in those instances? For example, it seems to be that the switch from polygamy to monogamy would be as profound as accepting gay marriage would be today. If not more so.

What about societies that did not allow the marriage of people who had different religions or cultures? Or between different social strata (e.g., different castes in India)?

Were there any societies that at on time forbad people to marry who could not have children (maybe due to illness or injury - but at any rate society knew that a couple would never have children)?

Maybe learning something of past experiences would be instructive today? Those who forget the past may be doomed (or blessed) to repeat it.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by MSimon »

Polygamy is a left over of an earlier state of nature. Evolutionarily it makes more sense for a woman to have offspring from a very capable Alpha Male even if she has to share him. Chickens and Apes still operate with this system. We are simply devolving back to a more primitive state.
We never left the primitive state. Women in their fertile time are severely attracted to alphas. The rest of the time they prefer a beta.

The only way to keep women even slightly in line and make marriage viable is to kill them if they have sex outside of marriage. Jesus ruined it for everybody.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:
Polygamy is a left over of an earlier state of nature. Evolutionarily it makes more sense for a woman to have offspring from a very capable Alpha Male even if she has to share him. Chickens and Apes still operate with this system. We are simply devolving back to a more primitive state.
We never left the primitive state. Women in their fertile time are severely attracted to alphas. The rest of the time they prefer a beta.
The Societal operating system may get re-written from time to time, but the BIOS remains the same. Conservatives understand this. It is Liberals who think human nature can be re-written.

MSimon wrote: The only way to keep women even slightly in line and make marriage viable is to kill them if they have sex outside of marriage.

You have presented us with the "false dilemma" fallacy.

MSimon wrote: Jesus ruined it for everybody.

As this notion is based on your previous flawed premise, it too is not proven.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by MSimon »

I was trying to be amusing, not present a solution. Evidently you were not amused.

I do like the attitude of liberals - they like to try something new from time to time. Conservatives however, screw it up by changing their principles based on how long a regime has been in effect giving no consideration to how well it works.

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution. — G.K. Chesterton

Liberals from time to time learn from their mistakes. Conservatives can't even remember when they thought it was a mistake. I'm sure this has something to do with our natures as well.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by rj40 »

I am not finding much. And no time to do real research. But I did find-

http://theweek.com/article/index/228541 ... centuries#

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:I was trying to be amusing, not present a solution. Evidently you were not amused.

Must have gone over my head.


MSimon wrote: I do like the attitude of liberals - they like to try something new from time to time.

But that's just it. No they don't. They like to try stuff that's new to THEM, but it is NOT NEW to mankind. It's very old in fact.

MSimon wrote: Conservatives however, screw it up by changing their principles based on how long a regime has been in effect giving no consideration to how well it works.

Again, nonsense. Conservatives advocate that which has been proven to work by prior history.

MSimon wrote: The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.

"Change" for it's own sake.

MSimon wrote:
The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

As Lincoln said "Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so."


MSimon wrote: Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution. — G.K. Chesterton


Since we are quoting G.K. Chesterton, i'll quote him about his fence.


In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.


MSimon wrote: Liberals from time to time learn from their mistakes.

Only the mistakes they personally make. They never remember the mistakes of their group, or history for that matter. When a Liberal realizes that his ideology is wrong, they become conservatives. They grow up.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Post Reply