Talk-Polywell.org

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... vorce.html

The answer? Do not allow couples with children to divorce for any reason.

and:

There is nothing gay about a sin condemned by Jesus! Yet.

At current rates of decline, there will be no heterosexual marriage at all in a few decades, the institution of marriage will be looked upon by straight young people as a gay thing, sort of like going to church.

choff wrote:At current rates of decline, there will be no heterosexual marriage at all in a few decades, the institution of marriage will be looked upon by straight young people as a gay thing, sort of like going to church.

sounds like the awesome sci fi book The Forever War. (main caracther returns to a completely different Earth, about 1000 years after his departure, due to relativistic effects)

Maybe, but there is also a trend into the other direction among young people. I have seen it more and more recently. That does not mean that choff is not right, but there is a small chance that things will turn arround.

choff wrote:At current rates of decline, there will be no heterosexual marriage at all in a few decades, the institution of marriage will be looked upon by straight young people as a gay thing, sort of like going to church.

If you plot the trend line then that indeed appears to be the case. However, Evolution/Biology has a way of self correcting. The proponents of all things which are traditionally considered evil, (Abortion, Homosexuality, Slavery (Our masters in D.C.) Hedonism ) are in population decline, while their enemies, (Decent people) are in population growth.

Eventually, the procreating forces of nature will reassert dominance. Austerity is coming. That will help straighten people out.

Skipjack wrote:Maybe, but there is also a trend into the other direction among young people. I have seen it more and more recently. That does not mean that choff is not right, but there is a small chance that things will turn arround.

The people who will survive to populate the future MUST reject the ideology of the present. (Rebel against authority! ) Nature will correct the (currently) dominant ideological error.

MSimon wrote:http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... vorce.html

The answer? Do not allow couples with children to divorce for any reason.

and:

There is nothing gay about a sin condemned by Jesus! Yet.

I generally don't read Erick's articles. They are so full of silly assumptions, false equivalences, and outright logical contradictions that they make my head hurt trying to follow his thinking. I don't consider him to be a serious thinker. (When you catch him in a contradiction, he runs and hides.)

I don't dismiss people just because their opinion is different from my own. They might be correct, and I might be in error. The only way to find out is to try and understand what they have to say, but with Erick, I've read enough of his articles to realize that he is just jabbering, and there really is no "there" there.

But for the H*ll of it, i'll try to follow this one.

My suspicions are confirmed. Eric really is a slog to follow, and when you get to the end, it is an irrelevant or trivial point.

Diogenes wrote:The proponents of all things which are traditionally considered evil, (Abortion, Homosexuality, Slavery (Our masters in D.C.) Hedonism ) are in population decline, while their enemies, (Decent people) are in population growth.

Confused. Are my gay friends my enemies because I am decent, or am I not decent because I have gay friends? Sounds like I have to make my gay friends enemies to be decent. And all this time, I thought tolerance was decent. Darn!

Too late, I already procreated.

regards

seedload wrote:

Diogenes wrote:The proponents of all things which are traditionally considered evil, (Abortion, Homosexuality, Slavery (Our masters in D.C.) Hedonism ) are in population decline, while their enemies, (Decent people) are in population growth.

Confused. Are my gay friends my enemies because I am decent, or am I not decent because I have gay friends? Sounds like I have to make my gay friends enemies to be decent. And all this time, I thought tolerance was decent. Darn!

Too late, I already procreated.

regards

Reeled in another one.

My gay friends are unlikely to breed, no matter what ceremony they engage in or how hard they otherwise try.

I've decided they are no threat to marriage. Naw, gotta be honest here, that's the fault of heterosexuals failing to take an honest look at their responsibilities to their offspring, and for not respecting an institution developed, I expect, over some tens of thousands of years of the experience of "primitive" cultures who are better at child-rearing than we are.

I believe the origin of civilization was not due to people forming villages to defend themselves from neighboring tribes. I believe civilization was born from people organizing culture to defend themselves from their own children. Cultures teach children how to behave as adults. Failure to do this results in kids teaching each other. Our modern term for this is "gangs".

Yeah, the problem is self-correcting. Let's hope we don't have to go back to the stone age to re-learn child-rearing. Rejection of marriage by heterosexuals is the real problem, and it is deadly serious.

I am of the opinion, though, that it is misguided to consider marriage a "right." It is clearly a responsibility, yet the modern culture seems to minimize that point. My only complaint with gay marriage is this notion that it is a "right", because it really takes the focus away from the real nature of the institution.

In a religious marriage ceremony, you pledge to honor each other as husband and wife 'til death do ye part. The legal paperwork does not enforce this, but I'd really like to see people think long and hard about this line. Used to be we expected people to honor their sacred pledges, but honor is now so old-fashioned.

Tom Ligon wrote:My gay friends are unlikely to breed, no matter what ceremony they engage in or how hard they otherwise try.

I've decided they are no threat to marriage. Naw, gotta be honest here, that's the fault of heterosexuals failing to take an honest look at their responsibilities to their offspring, and for not respecting an institution developed, I expect, over some tens of thousands of years of the experience of "primitive" cultures who are better at child-rearing than we are.

I believe the origin of civilization was not due to people forming villages to defend themselves from neighboring tribes. I believe civilization was born from people organizing culture to defend themselves from their own children. Cultures teach children how to behave as adults. Failure to do this results in kids teaching each other. Our modern term for this is "gangs".

You put forth legitimate points, but while I believe they are components of the problem, I don't regard them as primary components of the problem.


In my opinion, the Dominant force in the breakdown of the family is prosperity.

Tom Ligon wrote: Yeah, the problem is self-correcting. Let's hope we don't have to go back to the stone age to re-learn child-rearing. Rejection of marriage by heterosexuals is the real problem, and it is deadly serious.

Rejection of marriage is a symptom. I've recently read all sorts of articles identifying this or that cause for the breakup of marriage. They all offer components of the cause, but few offer the more significant causes. This one does.

It doesn't really go far enough, but it's in the right direction. MSimon also mentions this, but it's got it's causes and effects reversed.


Senator Daniel Patrick "Pat" Moynihan (an Intelligent, Honest, and Worthy of Respect Democrat) accurately predicted the Breakup of the Black Family, and likewise predicted the rest of the nation would follow the same path. What caused this? The most significant component is Prosperity. (Some of it false prosperity caused by borrowing from the future to play in the present.)

When young women were stingy with the goods, young men were better behaved and more willing to be harnessed for good. (You see, young men are born literally drug addicted to young women. ) Conditions caused by austerity required young women to be careful about gambling with their assets because if they gave them away without solid assurances they could find themselves in a dire and life threatening condition. Fear of being "in a bad way" caused them to demand an acknowledged (by the community) arrangement that would use peer pressure and the force of law to compel compliance with the contract.

I am of course talking about Marriage. Marriage was the assurance that any sensible young woman would demand to assuage her fear of being left to care for offspring by herself. Such girls regarded loose women as an all too real threat to their monopoly on the drug they use to keep their man harnessed.

What happened? The Union of the Sisterhood fell apart. The pill contributed, (making heretofore pregnancy risk disappear) and Abortion helped. Government Checks to unwed mothers took away the fear of being unable to support ones children and offspring. It all culminated in the ability of women to be more sexually irresponsible without consequence, which meant men didn't have to buy the cow to get the milk.

What does prosperity have to do with it? People could afford to behave in a more irresponsible manner than they had in the past. People were relatively content and more tolerant because they felt comfortable with their own financial futures, and were therefore willing to tolerate behavior from their Children and also their peers that in the past would have resulted in quick condemnation and social/legal pressure to behave.

That's really an oversimplification and I hope you can get the gist of what I am getting at. (this post is already too long.)

The party is about to stop.

Drugs and Death.



Ex-Alice in Chains Bassist Mike Starr Dead at 44

Starr, who was 44, was arrested earlier this month in Salt Lake City and found to be in possession of six Xanax pills and six Opana painkillers.

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/amplif ... ead-at-44/


http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2011/ ... il_ho.html

Actually, I blame the divorce lawyers for the increases in divorce rates, and not any changes in the rest of society. It's simple economics, the more people divorce, the more money they make, they and a few other industries. But now the milk cow is getting slaughtered, so the laws might be changed.

Remember, the church itself refused to marry couples until the 1700's.
It wanted the males to die without an inheritor, so they could get the estate.

don't see why the evangilicals would fight against ANYone getting married.
Same or opposite.....