rat avatar, do you have children? Do you have any idea how expensive children are? Why do you want to encourage large families?
In my mother’s generation, people had large families because they had land to work. Children meant more hands in the fields. Lack of knowledge and availability of birth control also contributed to large families.
I’ll also repeat thirdwarning’s question - what “nonsensical part” of domestic violence prosecutions are you referring to?
You mean David42 surely? :o 
oops.:(:smack:
Sorry, rat avatat, my most abject apologies.
Yes, I was addressing David42.
After he drew some kind of line by insinuate gays were pederasts, I lost all interest or respect for anything he had to say.
[QUOTE=David42]
Further, pederasty (today gays want to draw a distinction and claim gays don’t do this, but then they keep pointing to a culture that was all about it to defend themselves)
[/QUOTE]
The fact that he, in all ernest, cited for his facts the Family Research Council, shows which side his all-white bread is buttered is enough to show that he prefers to align himself withhate groups.
[QUOTE=David42]
It is all relevant. Read it or not as you choose. Perhaps not liking to click on links to information you do not like is one reason you are making the reasoning mistakes you are making.
[/QUOTE]
Umm, no. Ignoring “research” from hate groups is not a reasoned mistake. The fact that the FRC has drawn a line between homosexuals and pederasts makes me think that the original quote was more than just an insinuation on your part.
I’ve been on this message board for over 10 years now and have never blocked anyone. I’d love to keep that going but this man is just a waste of time.
I see what you did their.
Do you believe people have the right to run their businesses under ecclesiastical law, free from government interference?
Such as, if God thinks it is okay to own slaves, why is it the government’s business to dispute God?
You’re not exactly coming off as a genius yourself.
I’ve said this before, but I think it’s kind of insane to require that everyone stay married to the same person for 50 or 60 years. People change! The person you married at 20 isn’t the same person you’re still married to at 40.
Personally I’ve said that marriages should have an automatic expiration date after ten years. It should be really super easy to “opt in” again, like just sending a letter to a justice of the peace or something, but I’m not a fan of forcing people to stay in unhappy marriages. I think that’s a good source of the misery in this world.
I WANTED my parents to divorce. They never did, and they eventually worked through their difficulties, but their wars made my teen years even more hellish than teen years usually are. There was no outright abuse, but lots of booze, lots of yelling, lots of late night door slamming, broken things thrown at a wall, that sort of thing. Never directed at me, and rarely in my presence, but I could hear it all, see the aftermath, and it made me very very unhappy.
There were bouts of all through my life, now that I think back on it. I was treated very well, loved and cherished and pretty spoiled, but I HATED hearing all that, and feeling the tension and the sarcasm run like a miasma through the house.
It ruined my relationship with my father, it killed my love for him.
Why do you think that making divorce more difficult will increase the marriage rate? Economically, it should go the other way. Sure, there will be some people who are currently married and want to get divorced who won’t be able to meet the new stricter requirements. So the divorce rate will drop, and the average married couple will be more likely to stay married. But everyone who’s not married will see that getting married is a much bigger risk than it used to be. I’d expect to see the new marriage rate drop due to that. And eventually all the people who stayed married because they couldn’t get a divorce will die, and you’ll be left with an even lower steady state.
The reason the marriage rate is dropping isn’t that it’s easy to get a divorce. It’s because the economic incentives to be married are much weaker than they used to be. The only way to get back to historical rates of marriage is to take a way lots of rights and freedoms from one sex, giving them very little economic power to make it on their own.
My question is how would making divorces more difficult to obtain stop people from just up and leaving anyways? Obviously, people wouldn’t be able to remarry (if not divorced), which would lead to more children born to parents not married to each other. That, in turn, fucks up the legal rights of the children (whose father would legally be the one married to the mother, not the biological father). Then you have people paying child support for children that aren’t theirs and people not having rights to their biological children.
Oy.
Because the wanker won’t even spring for his own spaceship?
Excuse me … I have a question. What would god need with a starship?
Nobody at all is denying religious people the right to govern their marriages under ecclesiastical law. They (well, we, really) are just critiquing your position that secular civil government should be responsible for enforcing ecclesiastical marriage laws, even for partners who initially consented to such a marriage.
For example, if two Catholics get married with a full Mass service and strict Catholic vows, etc., and later on one of them wants to get a divorce and marry someone else in defiance of Catholic doctrine, it’s not the government’s business to prevent that.
Let the church (or synagogue, mosque, etc.) do its own heavy lifting when it comes to enforcing the rules about marriage that its adherents have voluntarily signed up for. If your church/temple/whatever can’t persuade or pressure its own members into abiding by its own rules, don’t come crying to Uncle Sam for legal penalties to “make them behave”.
Uncle Sam don’t tell you how to run your particular believers’ club, and you don’t ask Uncle Sam to enforce your club members’ compliance with the club rules. If your club can’t make its members follow the rules they said they’d follow, that’s your problem. Deal with it yourself.
Wow, David42 has been here since July of last year?! With posts like his I would have figured 3 weeks, tops!
Strictly in the interest of fighting ignorance, unless you’re like 150 years old this is almost certainly not true.
I won’t speak for David42, but domestic violence laws have went way beyond correcting the issue that society felt that a man beating the ever loving shit out of his wife was a “family matter.”
Now police are called for every push, shove, or slap and with mandatory arrest policies that force both parties to be arrested for what amounted to a very minor act of violence. Even if the charges are dropped (which they usually are) you still have an arrest for domestic battery which just screams: WIFE BEATER to anyone who pulls a criminal history, even if it was a bunch of garbage. I believe that in most of these cases, it should not be a police matter.
Also, it is prone to abuse because an aggrieved spouse can get a TRO by claiming to feel threatened because her husband yelled at her. Now, he has to go sleep on his friend’s couch and the police take all of his guns.
I’m kind of inclined to say that striking one’s wife does, in fact, make one a wife beater.
I’m inclined to err on the side of caution when deciding which wife beaters get to carry concealed firearms, too.
So there is no difference between a closed-fisted punch that breaks her jaw and a slight shove while walking past each other in a hallway?