Rrhain, listen, since you asked why I miss some of what you write, let me answer. If we're going to bother answering each other's posts at all, isn't it worth communicating?
Here's an example of why I miss things you write:
You used it, period. I'm well aware that many people use the term and I even understand what you mean by it. I am simply pointing out that it is a loaded word that doesn't mean what is meant by it.
Fine, then bring that up in a different thread or something. Pointing out things like this turn a one topic discussion into a forty topic discussion. It appears to bother you that I prioritize the little time I have available for message boards, but it's not going to change. I can't read all these boards, and it's difficult even to read whole threads if they're longer than 45 messages, or if the messages are real long. I can't discuss 40 topics. I don't have time. You might, but I don't.
It's hard sometimes to sort through your posts for the comments that are pertinent to the subject. You have a lot of things you care about, and you bring them up, even if they're not the topic.
For example:
For example, most sects of Christianity think that being gay is a sin and many of them are organizing to repress the rights of gays.
Christians called the Department of Child Services and said that me and my friends were having sex with children, even though they knew it wasn't true. A pastor on a message board managed to track down the last four states I lived in and my name, then posted a fictitious story about a crime I was supposedly involved in on the Prodigy bulletin board back when such boards were a lot more popular.
Non-Christians have never done anything like that to me. Non-Christians might enjoy the gossip they hear about the community I live in, but when they meet us, the acknowledge the gossip isn't true. Christians go away and lie.
I'm a believer in Christ, but I fully acknowledge that the Christianity I see in the United States is an utter failure. If Jesus of Nazareth was and is really the Christ of God, as I believe, then Christianity is probably the most embarrassing thing that has happened to him.
I was part of fundamental Christianity, and I was mean, rude, obnoxious, close-minded, short-sighted and brainwashed, and I when I started feeling bad about it, I was rejected.
I have my own views, and my views are strongly influenced by the community I am a part of. Very few of my views align well with modern Christianity nor with the conservative right.
All I'm doing is making clear that what Christians think and do is really none of my business, and it sure isn't an indication of what think and do. Very few things that are issues to Christians are issues to me.
Okay, back to the topic. The reason I miss some of what you write is that I have to sort through your posts, because of time, for what is on the topic I am involved in, because you cover a lot of topics and you bring up new ones in most of your posts.
Have you not been paying attention to the debate going on the US? The claim is that gay people break families.
No, I haven't, and I believe that gay people have very little to do with the breakup of families. I had no idea this was debated or discussed anywhere.
So why did you ignore the third link I mentioned?
I hope that as you read the rest of my post you saw I didn't ignore it.
You were making arguments before you got to that third post, and that's what I was pointing out.
For crying out loud...you were the one that brought up the fall of the Roman Empire due to "loose morals." You do know what that means, right? "Homosexuality." That's right, gays are blamed for the fall of Rome.
To you that's what it means. I've never had anyone else take it that way.
Tertullian, a 3rd century North African, used to complain about the morals of Rome a lot. He liked to point out that incest was unavoidable among the Romans because they put they both slept around and left their babies out on the side of the road to die or be saved by some caring person. This situation meant that you could easily end up sleeping with your own daughter, son, sister, or brother and not know it.
I'm sure he mentioned homosexuality at some point, but I don't remember it, because the rampant heterosexuality, the greed, the "looking out for yourself," and the hostility of people toward other people was what he focused on.
So, no, I don't think "loose morals" translates to homosexuality.
Only because it's a big issue at the moment. Haven't you been paying attention?
Nope, didn't know. I heard about the Supreme Court shooting down the sodomy law in Texas. I didn't know about anything else you said.
I don't have a TV. I get the news from the radio when I'm driving or from the occasional newspaper when my wife buys one for coupons.
Add into that the revolution in treatment of women since the 50s and it becomes clear that it is inappropriate to look at divorce rates in the 50s as some sort of standard which we should try to live up to again. When a woman couldn't own property outside of her husband, when a woman could only rarely earn a decent wage, what do you think that would do to the divorce rate? In this day and age, divorce is usually brought on by the wife (which shows another lie about men not wanting to get married...men are the ones who propose while women are the ones who divorce.) That's because she doesn't need a husband in order to keep herself out of poverty. That wasn't the case back in the 50s.
Now this is an answer to what I was asserting. I had to read a pretty long post before I got to a paragraph that addressed my assertion. That's why I miss things in your posts.
I did answer a couple of the more interesting ones, but I can't promise I can follow those up. Time, y'know.
I can't just take your word that women initiate most divorces. Let's see. In my experience, there's my father-in-law; he initiated that one; my brother's was initiated by his wife; my sister initiated all of hers; the Chamley's was initiated by the husband. Hmm, three more I can think of initiated by the wife, but in all three of those the husband was Christian and couldn't initiate it, because he wasn't allowed. My sister-in-law's was the husband.
If I keep going, it looks to me like about 2/3 of the divorces I know about are initiated by the wife. Pretty small sampling, though. Do you have any reason for believing what you believe about the reasons for the increase in divorce rate?
I have to admit that a women's situation after a divorce would have been horrendous in the 50's. That would definitely stop her from being the initiator then.
Nonetheless, suggesting that divorce is a bad idea and hurts children is not very popular, as can be seen on this board. I think it's bad that divorce rates are up, and I think most people need help working things out with one another. When it's easy to walk away, or to keep your distance, people walk away and keep their distance.
I'm very tired. I rambled. I'm sorry this is so long.
™ Version 4.2
