Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sunstone said:I used to think that way too, Hema. And yet, when James Dobson shook my hand and looked deeply into my soul with his manly eyes, I could in that moment only think of having his love child.
Revasser said:I think this preposterous notion of marrying voluntarily as adults and for "love" (of all the worst reasons to marry) has eroded the Traditional Marriage quite enough for me, thank you!
Bring back the good old days!
Yes, and Hail Caesar! It shall be glorious!MaddLlama said:Harems and arranged marriages to teenagers it is!
jmoum said:Huh, and there's something else for us to consider. Anybody who studies these kinds of things know that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. So, did other things happen durring these years? Like social incentive programs perhaps?
All I'm saying is that if the numbers do mean what the author is trying to say they mean, then sweet, good job, whatever. However, do they go into details to prove the connections between these numbers?
Do you think that proponents of banning gay marriage will also propose a constitutional amendment to prohibit divorce or re-marriage. That would bring truth to "one man - one woman" Do you think that after proponents "take care of" the very low percent of gays wanting to be married, they will direct their attention to unmarrieds or remarrieds? http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41024jewscout said:divorce and remarriage also modifies the "traditional family"
Pah said:Do you think that proponents of banning gay marriage will also propose a constitutional amendment to prohibit divorce or re-marriage. That would bring truth to "one man - one woman" Do you think that after proponents "take care of" the very low percent of gays wanting to be married, they will direct their attention to unmarrieds or remarrieds? http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41024
I didn't intend to misrepresent the numbers. I assumed people would read the entire article, which could not post in it's entirety here within the standards of Fair Use.jmoum said:Thank you. That's exactly the kind of statement I was looking for.
I hate it when people misrepresents numbers (whether it's intentional or unintentional), no matter what the cause is. Usually because I fall for it and end up looking like and idiot because of it later. But hey, I'm only human. Or am I . . . :areyoucra
jewscout said:the bigger threat to heterosexual marriage is heterosexuals.
You know... you may be on to something there.doppelgänger said:If the statistics are true that the number one and two causes of divorce are money and sex, then I think the biggest threat to marriage and families is the twin ideals of the Republicans: sexual repression and shrinking the protections economic opportunities for working families.
Reminds me of a quotation from Kinky Friedman (author, comedian, and Texas gubernatorial candidate):Ciscokid said:Two people meet, fall in love and then half the time they end up treating each other like crap and a divorce follows.
They've got us all on ignore, so they can't see the thread.Jaiket said:What happened to all the friendly resident anti-gay marriage RFers?
If it isn't founded upon mutual devotion, it isn't worth saving. Attempting to save something merely because it is traditional is foolish.Victor said:It was always my understanding that it would modify the traditional family.