Re: Attention Bush fans ~ Bush says global warming is real

From: Reuben Hick (reubenhick_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/01/04 

Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:54:24 GMT

"Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:I3Bw3n.1Cz@news.boeing.com...
>
> "Reuben Hick" <reubenhick@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:oW3Zc.7621$yC.7050@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com> wrote in
message
> > news:I3BpJE.F7p@news.boeing.com...
> >
> > > Would a conservative jump to change the constitution to
> > > restrain the states rights to declare homosexuals married?
> >
> > That is a gross mischaracterization
>
> I disagree, but there seems to be nothing of substance in your comments to
> exactly disagree with. That is, your universe is so different from mine,
we
> do not even have a touch point to bring us together.

Well I live on planet Earth, it is still yet to be determined where you are.
Have you read the proposed amendment? (No, for the evidence shows that you
haven't)

When you do get around to reading it and honestly discussing it, then we may
be on the same page.

> (as an interesting aside, based on the shocking rate at which our
> heterosexual married couples divorce. Since homosexual couples regard this
> odd marriage vow so highly, perhaps for the sake of the children, we
should
> insist that only homosexual couples be permitted to raise children. On the
> other hand, I am sure the divorce lawyers will be very happy to have an
> increase in the marriages they can screw over.)

Let me get this straight. You admit that "Hollywood" marriages, those
lasting for a short period of time, are so bad that it is harmful to
children. So we have common ground here in that traditional, long term,
no divorce, marriages are a good thing and should be encouraged. We also
agree that sham marriages are actually harmful to society and should be
discouraged.

So there is something about marriage that makes the institution valuable
when practiced correctly.

If you hold marriage so sacred, why then spin around 180 degrees and
advocate something that is harmful to marriage?

Since divorce is wrong, and is not a part of marriage, and you want to see
the intregrity of marriage maintained, why then say in effect "let's destroy
marriage by totally redefining it."?

This is called cognitive dissonance.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CA Prop 8: What if...?
    ... 13 - Eliminating Right to Divorce ... Dear Registered Voters of the Great State of California, ... critical step in improving our state marriage laws. ... California as a direct result of gay marriage. ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • All may be fair in love but not in divorce
    ... guilt in the dissolution of a marriage. ... Three sensational divorce rulings were announced last week. ... Of course the central concept of fairness that guided them must ... I do wonder whether the principle of fairness can ...
    (soc.men)
  • The Marriage Strike
    ... Marriage," a study released by researchers Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David ... marriage ends in divorce. ... While the courts may grant the former spouses joint legal custody, ... to his ex in child support, on top of whatever alimony payments the courts ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: A feminist defense of mens rights
    ... you however, marriage, as currently constituted in law, is about far ... has ceased to exist and divorce is simply the *legal* ... necessarily want to violate their sworn oath. ... far better to let the parents go their own ways and use the power ...
    (soc.men)
  • Women in Islam XI (REPOST)
    ... Christianity abhors divorce altogether. ... Testament unequivocally advocates the indisolubility of marriage. ... divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to ... second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, ...
    (alt.religion.islam)