It would also not affect anyone else who doesn’t choose to govern themselves by those views on divorce. And one would expect that the “two people” in your hypothetical above would not be affected by the existence of permissive divorce laws.
Unless…are you suggesting that if one of those two people should change his or her mind about staying married, the other person should be able to override the new decision, based on the religious views they asserted at the time of the wedding?
What if one of the partners converts to a new religion, then?
I don’t know what it is with all these men around posting religious crapola both here and in the local newspaper.
I thank my Goddess for men like you who let their ignorance show with everything you write, because it only shows your own weakness, to rely on such antiquated goat shit to prove your points. You whine that women don’t want to marry, but not many women wants to be with someone who’s going to treat them badly, because some shit-for-brains shepherd had a random brain fart, that managed to make it into a fairytale disguised as a religious text.
Dave is within his rights to post bullshit here but the rest of us have the right to call him a weak-sauce shitheaded fool. I will continue to advocate for secularism over religion for the rest of my life, because most religions ARE in the way of equal rights for a large chunk of humanity.
I had several friends who lived (and worked) on farms when I was growing up, and their parents busted their asses to make sure they didn’t “earn their keep.” That is, they made sure that the amount of resources they put in to raising their children far exceeded the value of the children’s labor. Perhaps that’s selection bias, and the kids whose labor produced a net gain for their families didn’t have friends, or friends like me.
I never said “the era of big families ended…” at all.
nm
Why can’t it be both?
Thats right! I hate it when folks around here partake of the “excluded asshole” fallacy.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I note that the post by SnakesCatLady that started this tangent off said, “In my mother’s generation, people had large families because they had land to work.” which sounds to me like breeding specifically for labor. I don’t think I can fault saoirse for thinking that SCL meant what she wrote.
No, the exact reason is Great-Grammy and Grampy liked to fuck and there was no birth control.
I see I need to apologize for not being more specific. I made the mistake of thinking a fairly intelligent group of people would automatically apply all knowledge they possessed to a given situation. I thought everyone would know of the absence of reliable birth control in the era I was referring to.
It was not breeding specifically for labor. It was more along the lines of not making an attempt to limit the number of children because they were not a drain on the family resourses; at least not as much as they would be in a family which did not grow the majority of their own food.
I get it now I did think you were referring to Mao’s “with every mouth comes two hands” philosophy quoted above (which was quickly replaced by the “we really need to reduce the number of mouths and hands by any means necessary” philosophy). People really did do that as late as the early nineteenth century in America, and elsewhere, before the advent of “kindervulture” or “the cult of childhood” during the Victorian Era.
That should be “kinderculture.”
But if you don’t work on the farm, the kindervulture will get you.
Everyone knows the kindervulture is out there, waiting, planning, sunset reflected in unblinking eyes…
Commonsense conservative values for the 21st century.
And another asshole steps into the fray…
Out of curiosity, can you put in bullet form which values you are referring to?
I was just referring to the excellent ideas in that quote of David42’s in the first post in this thread.
Can you be specific? “I would eliminate no-fault divorce” is certainly not an excellent idea, for example.
Well, you liberals have all sorts of crazy ideas, so I won’t argue that point with you. But I’m sure it’s uncontroversial that we need to weaken protections against domestic violence, obligate our courts to enforce religious law, and lower the age to consent to perform in pornography to 14. It’s just basic common sense.