Iowa Family Policy Center's "Marriage Vow"

[elucidator]

Most of my family members annoy the shit out of me on a regular basis. If I want warm and fuzzy, I can go buy a cat.

[sqweels]

@Oakminster

Dude, you’re making me side with Der Trihs in the Pit. That really pisses me off. Stop with the stupid already. His meaning was perfectly clear, yet obviously went sailing right over your pointy little head.

To re-state it wearing my own crackpot-hat, “family” is becoming well-nigh synonymous with “sharia”.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Oakminster

Dude, you’re making me side with Der Trihs in the Pit. That really pisses me off. Stop with the stupid already. His meaning was perfectly clear, yet obviously went sailing right over your pointy little head.

this made me laugh

[BrightNShiny]

From Pandagon:

He [the blogger Bartunde] also discovered in this document the phrase “the intimate fruit of conjugal intimacy”, which he and I both take to mean “children”, though technically it could also mean the wet spot if you really think about it. But I love this phrase for three major reasons: 1) The WTF factor 2) They appear to think that “children” isn’t a word you can use around the faint-hearted and came up with this as a euphemism and 3) That is some poor fucking writing. Like, really poor. Who uses the word “intimate” twice in a single phrase? It’s also, as noted before, not accomplishing goal #1 of writing, which is to communicate clearly. They’ve taken a concept that pretty much everyone understands—“children”—and made it more ambiguous by using a phrase that could refer to a wad of semen, an orgasm, or a case of the clap, as well as children. There’s so many ways they could have tweaked that phrase to make it clearer. For instance, “the ambulatory fruit of conjugal intimacy” gives you a lot more information while avoiding redundancy.

[appleciders]

@zoid

How would they even know this to be true? Are there any reasonably accurate records from the years of slavery to give a fairly reasonable picture of how many children were raised in two parent households? Also iirc from history class, breaking up families and selling off children was a fairly common practice under slavery.

I don’t know if there’s any good information about that, but here’s my best guess: children born to slaves in 1860 were less likely to be separated from parents because it was a time of war, the Union was blockading and killing the export markets, and they were all emancipated three* years later. That gives the slaveholders much less time to sell anyone down the river and the lousy economy (and Union armies) make it a lot harder to sell anybody further than one county away. These factors could easily allow greater than 30% of the black children born in the south to grow up in a two parent household (which frankly is a pretty low mark to hit). I wonder if the Iowa Family Policy Center’s claim would be true if the date were 1840, not 1860.

*OK, so most of them aren’t really freed until five years later, after Appomattox. Point still stands.

[Little_Nemo]

For instance, “the ambulatory fruit of conjugal intimacy” gives you a lot more information while avoiding redundancy.

Ambulatory implies that the “pre-born” are not children and I’m thinking that won’t fly with this crowd.

[Nava]

I have a question, and excuse me but I’m not going to honor those people by giving them a hit unless it can be with a half-bricked sweaty sock:

Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children…

so… they don’t mean that they consider every kid who’s born in wedlock an American, right? I mean, I’m not even sure whether that could be considered as the mostest liberal immigration policy ever or as stealing other countries’ future. Are test-tube/turkey-baster American babies also to be protected, or not? Do they propose to protect foreign babies or not? If yes, have they gone into any detail as to the specific logistics of it?

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Miller

Too much Drunky, not enough Smurf.

Just out of curiosity, what would more Smurf look like?

[Czarcasm]

@Cat_Whisperer

Just out of curiosity, what would more Smurf look like?

Like this.

[Der_Trihs]

Or [this](http://popartmachine.com/artwork/LOC+1131526/0/[Yellow-submarine.]-[Max,-the-blue-meany]-SWANN---no.-381-(A-size)-(A...-painting-artwork-print.jpg).

[Sampiro]

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born in to slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African- American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.

Well if the gosh darned government had just let the South keep their slaves then they’d still have two parent families. And it wasn’t southerners who changed it- it was those meddlin’ Iowans and Minnesotans.

Man, this whole thing is like a dancing waters routine for crazy bullshit and misinformation.

@joebuck20

I’m still waiting for the hammer to fall on Mr. Bachmann. That guy’s just begging to get caught in a men’s room shuffling his feet.

If he was any gayer he’d sneeze glitter.

[zoid]

@Sampiro

If he was any gayer he’d sneeze glitter.

Can a straight guy have a gay-gasm?
Because I just lost it on that one!

[Merijeek]

@sqweels

To re-state it wearing my own crackpot-hat, “family” is becoming well-nigh synonymous with “sharia”.

Well, sure, but, you know, the good kind of Sharia. You know the [makes crossing gesture], not the, you know, [makes crescent swooping gesture].

-Joe

[jayjay]

@Sampiro

If he was any gayer he’d sneeze glitter.

I have a friend who once described another friend thusly:

“If you snuck up behind that boy and shouted ‘Boo!’, you’d get glitter all over your shoes…”

[Double_Foolscap]

@Der_Trihs

<sigh> You know, I remember when the term “family” felt warm-and-fuzzy. These days it feels about as warm-and-fuzzy as “rule by the iron fist”.

It’s like when a country needs to put “Democratic” in its name.

[BobLibDem]

@Sampiro

If he was any gayer he’d sneeze glitter.

I am SO stealing this line!

[ZPG_Zealot]

Faithful monogamy based in the Jewish and Christian scriptural tradiations? Right. I would love to hear her explain the multiple wives /concubines of the Old Testament Patriarchs. Didn’t David (one of the Judeo-Christian god’s annonated kings!) have a few dozen, but still found time to fool around with someone else’s wife?

[Bricker]

@ZPG_Zealot

Didn’t David (one of the Judeo-Christian god’s annonated kings!) have a few dozen, but still found time to fool around with someone else’s wife?

Yes, but that’s not an example of a good thing, assuming you mean Bathsheba, seen and lusted after by David while she was bathing on the roof.

David’s action is presented as sinful, and the Lord sent Nathan, a prophet, to chastise David. As we learn from II Samuel 12:7, Nathan asks David for judgement of a case in which a rich man, who has “flocks and herds in great numbers,” nonetheless steals a ewe lamb from a poor man who has nothing but that ewe. David, furious, announces that the rich man merits death for such an egregious offense, at which point Nathan springs the Gotcha:

You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'I anointed you king of Israel. I rescued you from the hand of Saul.

I gave you your lord’s house and your lord’s wives for your own. I gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were not enough, I could count up for you still more.

Why have you spurned the LORD and done evil in his sight? You have cut down Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you took his wife as your own, and him you killed with the sword of the Ammonites.

Now, therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah to be your wife.’

Say whatever else you will about this crazy pledge… but this example you raise does not help your case.

[Zsofia]

I just Googled Marcus Bachmann to find out exactly how gay I think he is and after the first few letters Google suggested “Marcus Bachmann gay”.

[Zsofia]

Sorry, mysterious double post.