Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

The Lord and the Courts

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 07, 2014 12:44 PM
Public policy applies to all. Marriage laws apply to all. You are naive if you think WHAT has been one (declaring there's no difference between bride+groom unions and other kinds of pairings) and HOW it has been done (fascistic tactics, judicial overreach, bad new precedents, elected and appointed leaders abandoning their oaths and obligations) will not have a larger effect, some of it negative, of it things YOU don't like.
In response to:

The Lord and the Courts

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 07, 2014 12:40 PM
That it takes one man and one woman to naturally create new human beings is apparently, to so many people, just a minor fact of reality that has little meaning on anything. Got that? Creating new human beings, new citizens, is not an important matter. There's no difference between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual coitus. Gender diversity is SO EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE... except marriage. Go figure. SCOTUS rules on DOMA and says states trump federal government on marriage. They do NOT find a "right" to a state marriage license without a bride or without a groom. Subsequently, a bunch of LOWER federal courts decided it IS the place of federal government to determine the legal description of marriage, usurping the power of the state. And SCOTUS doesn't intervene. Want to go into law? Forget logic, reason, precedent, order. Just play on emotions until you have the most whiny and vicious advocacy group. THAT is what really matter.
In response to:

The Truth Test

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 02, 2014 11:20 AM
A boy wanting to play with dolls does not mean the boy is really a girl. It means he's a boy who likes to play with dolls (for now). No boy knows what it feels like to be a girl, and vice-versa. A boy not feel comfortable being himself (for now), but it doesn't make him a girl.
In response to:

The Truth Test

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 02, 2014 11:18 AM
I remember a few years ago when a sports writer for the Pink Lady (my name for the Los Angeles Times) announced he was "transgender" and would now go by a female name. California law forces us all to pretend to be supportive of this kind of thing, but the Pink Lady went the extra mile for... "Christine" I think he was now called. Anyway, they gave him a platform to write about being transgender and made it clear they were cheering him on. I don't know how far he went with it, meaning I don't recall if he had surgery or hormone injections or what. Anyway, one day, he simply reverted back to stop pretending to being a woman. That must have been awkward enough for the Pink Lady. But it got even worse: he soon killed himself. How tragic. Here was a man who was fully "supported" in his claim to be transgender. They "supported" him right into killing himself, because, you know, NOT cheering on his self-destruction would have been "hate".
In response to:

Marriage Still Matters

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 01, 2014 11:36 AM
Unless there are significant changes in marriage & family law, and our culture, more and more men are going to avoid marrying and avoid becoming fathers. More & more men are going to join the "marriage strike". They would rather be chaste and go through life "alone" than take on what they see as the risks, harms, restrictions, and burdens of marriage. No small part of why these people have gone on a marriage strike has to do with the family laws and courts: unilateral no-fault divorce; community property laws combined with the fact that most men do/will earn the majority, if not all of the income during the marriage financially punishes men for marrying; alimony requirements (lifetime, in some places!); child custody and support issues; presumed paternity and paternity fraud; domestic violence response by law enforcement being at the point where a man can get physically assaulted by his wife and be the one to go to jail and permanently kicked out of his own home while still required to pay for it. Strictly speaking LEGALLY, if a husband earns more than his wife, as most husbands do, the only benefit a man gets from marrying is, in most places, default paternity status over his children. This, of course, is assuming he wanted children in the first place. However, how many men have been unjustly denied access to their children by the mother moving away or orchestrating false abuse allegations? Meanwhile, a woman gets certain financial benefits/guarantees for being a wife, via the force of law. A man who has no moral qualms about unmarried sex can now get literally everything he wants from women, a never ending variety of women at that, without ever marrying, and not suffering socially or professionally.
Unless there are significant changes in marriage & family law, and our culture, more and more men are going to avoid marrying and avoid becoming fathers. More & more men are going to join the "marriage strike". They would rather be chaste and go through life "alone" than take on what they see as the risks, harms, restrictions, and burdens of marriage. No small part of why these people have gone on a marriage strike has to do with the family laws and courts: unilateral no-fault divorce; community property laws combined with the fact that most men do/will earn the majority, if not all of the income during the marriage financially punishes men for marrying; alimony requirements (lifetime, in some places!); child custody and support issues; presumed paternity and paternity fraud; domestic violence response by law enforcement being at the point where a man can get physically assaulted by his wife and be the one to go to jail and permanently kicked out of his own home while still required to pay for it. Strictly speaking LEGALLY, if a husband earns more than his wife, as most husbands do, the only benefit a man gets from marrying is, in most places, default paternity status over his children. This, of course, is assuming he wanted children in the first place. However, how many men have been unjustly denied access to their children by the mother moving away or orchestrating false abuse allegations? Meanwhile, a woman gets certain financial benefits/guarantees for being a wife, via the force of law. A man who has no moral qualms about unmarried sex can now get literally everything he wants from women, a never ending variety of women at that, without ever marrying, and not suffering socially or professionally.
Opening a restaurant is tough, in no small part due to government intrusion, lawyers, and people with imagined allergies/ridiculous food prep/handling requests. I'm not dismissing all allergies or dietary needs, but some people have deluded themselves.
In response to:

Is It Ever OK To Spank?

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Sep 23, 2014 12:59 PM
Why can't parents simply consult one of the millions of books, DVDs, or websites that will tell them how to deal with bad behavior in children... you know, the ones that all hopeless contradict one another?
Unless there are significant changes in marriage & family law, and our culture, more and more men are going to avoid marrying and avoid becoming fathers. More & more men are going to join the "marriage strike". They would rather be chaste and go through life "alone" than take on what they see as the risks, harms, restrictions, and burdens of marriage. No small part of why these people have gone on a marriage strike has to do with the family laws and courts: -unilateral no-fault divorce -community property laws combined with the fact that most men do/will earn the majority, if not all of the income during the marriage financially punishes men for marrying -alimony requirements (lifetime, in some places!) -child custody and support issues -presumed paternity and paternity fraud -domestic violence response by law enforcement being at the point where a man can get physically assaulted by his wife and be the one to go to jail and permanently kicked out of his own home while still required to pay for it Strictly speaking LEGALLY, if a husband earns more than his wife, as most husbands do, the only benefit a man gets from marrying is, in most places, default paternity status over his children. This, of course, is assuming he wanted children in the first place. However, how many men have been unjustly denied access to their children by the mother moving away or orchestrating false abuse allegations? Meanwhile, a woman gets certain financial benefits/guarantees for being a wife, via the force of law.
Sorry.... I should have removed the start of that comment because I'm recycling and it doesn't make sense here.
XY chromosomes and 18+ years of life. Seriously, I appreciate the SENTIMENT behind this photo and question and behind the "real man" talk in general. I do this for my wife. I am a husband and father and sole income earner - all by design. However, I'm getting increasingly weary of when the lovelier sex presumes to be the judge of what a "real" man is. It is really shorthand for "This is what I like men to do." That's GOOD. That's your right. We SHOULD teach boys and girls what is good behavior and what is bad behavior. We don't hear talk about "real" women. Is there no test for making a female a "woman" the way we have a test for what makes a male a "man"? I could go on forever, but I'll stick to two more points: 1) There are very few, if any, places for boys to be socialized into "real" men anymore because so many of them are not being raised by a "real" man in the home, and most media and every organization or institution has now been FEMINIZED to cater to the sensitivities of women & girls, if not outright integrated with women in leadership or girls in the mix. 2) If you think taking control (or however you want to phrase it) is a quality of a "real" man, than you should realize that a husband can only do so at the VOLUNTARY generosity, restraint, or yielding of his wife, because if push comes to shove (figuratively or literally), the laws and courts will most likely side with HER, not him. Example: She let's their daughter dress like a hooker. He says "no". How's he going to get his way? By physically restraining his daughter? By physically restraining his wife? Yeah, good luck with that. It's criminal to do so. Either female can assault him and send HIM to jail. Then he can lose custody, lose over half of everything he's worked for, and pay lifetime alimony. If you find emasculated males to be a turnoff, well, the law doesn't care. It emasculates
Previous 11 - 20 Next