ran its course

[Dawkinsrocks]

Yes, the right have done really well haven't they

The thieving bankers have crippled your country and the right wing leaders have embroiled you in wars that have cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars

And boy are you lot going to pay for that

But I don't hear anyone talking about the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich

Because you are not capable of seeing what is being done to you by the criminals that are suckering you by appealing to your mad nationalistic tendencies and animalistic instincts

Oh and BTW, Thatcher was a lunatic who is widely acknowledged as doing irreparable damage to the UK and was so hated that even her own party rebelled against her and booted her out of office

But then the UK for all its faults is a much more tolerant and cerebral society than the US

 

[PLC1]

what does this mean ?

some same sex couple is divorcing which is not news but this statement I cannot get my head around...



if there is a course that implies a predictable beginning and end. the vow placed that end at 'til death do us part' or words to that effect.

I guess vows are just a quaint old fashioned thing like the Constitution.

Sadly, that seems to be the attitude towards marriage today. Why would homosexual marriage be any different?

Yours to have and to hold until something better comes along.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And so what?

Who gives a shit?

Don't you think that in the lying stakes there is a lot more to worry about?

Like Governments lying to idiots to get them supporting mass murder?

Don't you think that ever so slightly trumps mere mortals not being able to keep promises to stay together forever?

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, the right have done really well haven't they

The thieving bankers have crippled your country and the right wing leaders have embroiled you in wars that have cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars

And boy are you lot going to pay for that

But I don't hear anyone talking about the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich

Because you are not capable of seeing what is being done to you by the criminals that are suckering you by appealing to your mad nationalistic tendencies and animalistic instincts

Oh and BTW, Thatcher was a lunatic who is widely acknowledged as doing irreparable damage to the UK and was so hated that even her own party rebelled against her and booted her out of office

But then the UK for all its faults is a much more tolerant and cerebral society than the US

got anything to say regarding this thread or did you think its ok to spew your standard tripe anywhere you please ? thats in violation of rule 3. please desist.

 

[dogtowner]

Sadly, that seems to be the attitude towards marriage today. Why would homosexual marriage be any different?

Yours to have and to hold until something better comes along.

it wouldn't. sad but true last sentence.

 

[Openmind]

well there are obviously people all over the political spectrum who take marriage rather casually.

and its true regarding the last sentence as M.Thatcher pointed out years ago regarding the result of socialists running out of other people's money.

Excuse me? You accuse ME of not staying focused on the OP. . .and therefore of breaking this forum's rules. . .
And YOU bring up Margaret Thatcher and her statement on Socialist society?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It seems to me that, as a newbie moderator, YOU are exempt of this forum's rule on "staying on topic," or you are not bright enough to recognize the difference between a "marriage commitment" and a "socialist society" statement!

Okay, you're excused. . .this time!

 

[dogtowner]

Excuse me? You accuse ME of not staying focused on the OP. . .and therefore of breaking this forum's rules. . .
And YOU bring up Margaret Thatcher and her statement on Socialist society?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It seems to me that, as a newbie moderator, YOU are exempt of this forum's rule on "staying on topic," or you are not bright enough to recognize the difference between a "marriage commitment" and a "socialist society" statement!

Okay, you're excused. . .this time!

lefty championed changes such as n o fault divorce have deteriorated as Thatcher noted in the general.

 

[Openmind]

lefty championed changes such as n o fault divorce have deteriorated as Thatcher noted in the general.

Really?

I didn't know that Reagan was a lefty!

You do realize that the first state to come up with "no fault divorce" was California in 1970, and that REAGAN, as Governor of CA, who advocated for and signed the law?

And that it took 40 years for the 50th state (New York) to make that law the "law of the land" throughout the United States of America?

And here is the impact of this law:

[edit]Impact (from Wikepedia)
A 2004 Stanford Business School study[20] compared outcomes in states that adopted no-fault divorce versus those that did not. It found:
20% reduction in female suicide after 20 years, none for men
33% reduction in domestic violence against women (after a rise in other states vs. a drop in no-fault states)
Reduction in the domestic murder rate for women, none for men
Study authors argued that in part, men were encouraged to behave better because they knew it would be easy for their spouses to divorce and find another partner.[20]

I don't know about you, but I would regard these impacts as rather positive!

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Sorry dog

I didn't realise that mods are allowed to make references that us mere posters can't respond to

Wouldnt be more bias and hypocrisy from the largely right wing American mods would it?

I mean, all threads twist and turn but I can't find any examples of you warning those who share your views

Maybe you should ban me again for saying that maybe the stupidity is big robs

Power eh dog?

Ever thought of being a traffic warden?

 

[dogtowner]

Sorry dog

I didn't realise that mods are allowed to make references that us mere posters can't respond to

Wouldnt be more bias and hypocrisy from the largely right wing American mods would it?

I mean, all threads twist and turn but I can't find any examples of you warning those who share your views

Maybe you should ban me again for saying that maybe the stupidity is big robs

Power eh dog?

Ever thought of being a traffic warden?

twists and turns are one thing, yours is nothing close to that. If others do it they'll hear about it as well. we all agreed to abide by the rules when we registered here, kindly honor that commitment.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Gen said nothing the left touches it destroys and I reminded him of the hypocrisy of that by pointing out the shortcomings of the right

Is the problem that you didn't understand that?

Or that you a very biased mod who publicly warns me but allows large numbers of similar 'infringements ' from your fellow Klansmen?

 

[dogtowner]

Really?

I didn't know that Reagan was a lefty!

You do realize that the first state to come up with "no fault divorce" was California in 1970, and that REAGAN, as Governor of CA, who advocated for and signed the law?

And that it took 40 years for the 50th state (New York) to make that law the "law of the land" throughout the United States of America?

And here is the impact of this law:

[edit]Impact (from Wikepedia)
A 2004 Stanford Business School study[20] compared outcomes in states that adopted no-fault divorce versus those that did not. It found:
20% reduction in female suicide after 20 years, none for men
33% reduction in domestic violence against women (after a rise in other states vs. a drop in no-fault states)
Reduction in the domestic murder rate for women, none for men
Study authors argued that in part, men were encouraged to behave better because they knew it would be easy for their spouses to divorce and find another partner.[20]

I don't know about you, but I would regard these impacts as rather positive!

nobody is perfect, Reagan included.

why am I not surprised that you ignore the effects on children, education etc in favor of your own demographic ? if (and I mean if) there is a tradeoff that favors adults or children its no contest in my mind having seen the effects so very often in the eyes of children torn by divorce.

 

[GenSeneca]

Gen said nothing the left touches it destroys and I reminded him of the hypocrisy of that by pointing out the shortcomings of the right

Wrong again...

It is too bad so many Americans do not think like me...it was not this way some years ago...but, everything the Left touches, they ultimately destroy.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Yes sadly this iPad decided to change a typo in 'anything' to 'nothing'

That correction would make it comprehendible to a sane person with an above average IQ

 

[Openmind]

nobody is perfect, Reagan included.

why am I not surprised that you ignore the effects on children, education etc in favor of your own demographic ? if (and I mean if) there is a tradeoff that favors adults or children its no contest in my mind having seen the effects so very often in the eyes of children torn by divorce.

Children suffer a lot less with two happy parents, even if they are separated, than they do living in a house where there is no love, where there may be abuse and fighting. It all depends how divorce is handled, and the less "drama" around divorce, the less tearing at each other the parents do, the best the children will come out of it.

Apparently, you just love to bash "liberals," even when the law is not a "liberal law" but is based on common sense and sound practice.

And this coming from someone who has never divorced, and who has one child who has been married to the same woman for 16 years, and the other who divorced after 6 years of marriage, and is having a very successful relationship with her former husband with whom she share (about 60/30) custody of her two boys. In fact, I wonder sometime if that ability the children have to "escape" pressure in one home, by going into the other home is not quite beneficial to them.

I would still prefer to give children a loving home until they reach adulthood (as my husband and I have tried to do), but there is no doubt in my mind that, if a couple cannot not provide a "loving home," a civilised divorce (one that doesn't include tearing each other apart and having to find "major fault" with the other, when really there is nothing except a lack of love and a growing apart) is more healthy for children.