Previous 11 - 20 Next
"Here’s what marriage is: the God-ordained, lifelong, covenantal union between man and wife, designed to provide men, women and children optimal stability and overall well-being. Marriage is that biologically, spiritually and morally centered institution calculated to ensure responsible procreation and perpetuate the human race." That may be so from a Christian perspective, but legal/societal marriage is resembling that less and less: God? Atheists can marry in a godless ceremony. Lifelong? Not with unilateral divorce for no reason. Covenental? Really? Neither churches nor society enforce any covenental provision. The law requires the spouse who earns more (usually the man) to financially support the other person no matter how rotten they are, AND the man is assigned responsibility for the wife's children even if she had them via adultery. Man and wife? We all know what's been going on with that. Stability? Well-being? I Maybe. Certainly not legally enforced. Responsible procreation? Out-of-wedlock births and parenting are no longer penalized or shamed in any way, and many people who are married are irresponsible in their procreation, especially if they stick their kids in daycare at six weeks of age.
Yup. I want to hear a call like this to Dave Ramsey or any conservative and/or business/financial commentator who will answer questions/give advice through call-in show. Dave Ramsey is ideal because he gives financial advice and is popular in conservative religious circles: I want to know your thoughts about this pending deal because I’m getting cold feet. I have a friend with whom I’ve had what amounts to a weekend hobby for a few years. We often get together a couple of nights in a week, too. My buddy wants to take it to the next level, though, with papers and everything. He wants to form a partnership and register it with the state. Although there’s nothing in the written contract that penalizes either of us for working with others, my potential partner expects I will put all of time and resources into the partnership, and said there'd be Hell to pay if I even thought of doing a side project with someone else and the partnership would be over. With the people who've prepared like we have, who hire a consultant like we have, there's about a 40% failure rate of these ventures. Failure would mean not only would half of the assets go to my partner, but I would have to pay my partner’s attorney fees, and I would be obligated to pay money to my partner based on the length of the partnership; if the partnership had lasted ten years or more, I’d be making payments in perpetuity. There is the possibility that products would be created within the partnership that could be liabilities and financial drains for 18-25 years; I would be expected to cover those costs, including more than necessary if manage to earn a high income. There is a possibility, but by no means a certainty, that the products will provide me with some nominal income late in my life. Even though there is an expectation that we would not work outside of the partnership, many people who’ve entered into these agreements have done that anyway, and like I said, there is no penalty for doing so. If my partner incurs a liability with someone else, I would be obligated to pay for it for 18-25 years. Finally, my partner has indicated that soon into the partnership, I will be the person solely responsible for bringing in revenue; my partner plans to provide intangible contributions, such as encouragement, but would not be penalized at all for not doing so. Even without bringing in any revenue, my partner would still get at least half of the assets in the event the partnership ended. Good deal?
Women are far more likely to file for divorce than men, probably, in part, because our laws gives them incentives to do so. Want marriage to last? Don't file for divorce. Do I hear churches talking much against filing for divorce? Or frivolous spending, gossip, or gluttony, all of which can hurt and threaten marriage? Not really, but I sure hear churches and my fellow Christians blaming husbands a lot, and talking about what a terribly egregious thing it is for a man to see pixels that depict the bodies of women, not caring nearly as much if a husband's wife is rejecting or morbidly obese (1/3rd of the church is overweight, another 1/3rd is obese.)
I love the good Doctor, but the voters are not going to elect someone President without any experience as a Governor or Senator or Speaker of the House. He'd make a great Secretary of Health and Human Services.
To judge evangelicals by watching a few minutes of TBN is like judging all athletes based on watching a few minutes of WWE. There are serious evangelical thinkers whose work isn't difficult to find. How many mockers of Christianity have ever bothered to read or listen to anything by any of the following when addressing what they believe and why, and what it means for how they live: William Lane Craig J.P. Moreland Gary Habermas Chuck Colson Francis Beckwith Greg Koukl R.C. Sproul Hugh Hewitt Nancy Pearcey Joni Eareckson Tada Francis Schaffer Josh McDowell Frank Turek Dinesh D'Souza William Dembski Hugh Ross Peter Kreeft Paul Copan Max Lucado N.T. Wright
We knew this was going to happen. Marriage neutering advocates must simultaneously insist that sex differences are so important they couldn't be happy with someone of the opposite sex AND that sex differences do not matter, to the point of devaluing men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, masculinity and femininity. SCOTUS Justice RBG seems to think the court could be better with 9 women. It's almost as though SHE thinks there are differences between the sexes, but yet she will claim such differences are trivial when it comes to marriage. Go figure.
The state supreme court, which struck down Prop 22, agreed that Prop 8 was a duly adopted state constitutional amendment. Then a homosexual, partnered FEDERAL fudge, er, judge who stood to directly benefit from his ruling, struck down the constitutional amendment. Eventually, it went to SCOTUS. which said they couldn't decide the case because the defense (the people who backed the ballot measure, since California's elected leaders abandoned their oaths and refused to defend their own constitution) didn't have standing. This should have either knocked the matter back to what the state supreme court said (which affirmed Prop 8) or should have meant that only the specific plaintiffs in their respective counties (two couples, two counties) should have been issued "marriage" licenses based on the ruling. But everyone in power has pretended that SCOTUS struck down Prop 8 and that California must issue "marriage" licenses to any brideless or groomless couple. (Also, the same day, SCOTUS ruled in the federal DOMA cases AGAIN that marriage is a STATE matter, but that hasn't stopped federal judges from intervening since the ruling.)
Yes, words are important. That's why neither Prop 22 nor Prop 8 were "bans". Nobody was stopping anyone from having ceremonies, exchanging jewelry, changing names, receiving gifts, having a reception, going on a vacation, living together, calling themselves married, or any business or other non-government organization from recognizing them as such.
Law and order doesn't really apply when it comes to neutering marriage. It is "heads the marriage neutering crowd wins, tails the marriage defenders lose." That is why even though SCOTUS essentially ruled that marriage is a state matter, federal judges continue to intervene to neuter state marriage licenses as though it is a federal matter. Just imagine if conservatives passed on gun licenses the same way, disregarding gun laws. Of course the difference is that gun rights are enumerated in the Constitution, while the "right" to neuter state marriage licenses is not.
In response to:

The Rudeness of Registries

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Jun 23, 2014 10:55 AM
My wife keeps a wish list and encourages me (or anyone else) to use it when getting her a gift. It's GREAT! I don't see what the fuss is about, except when wedding invitations include a link to the registry. Those who are interested will ASK where they are registered. I think some people just don't like technological advancements. Don't like these? Don't use them, either for yourself or when buying a gift. Anyone who makes a registry should accept that not everyone is going to use it.
My cheeseburgers topped with bacon-wrapped shrimp aren't respected as much as food with with a "kosher" label, so I'm going to sue the people (represented by their government) until they are forced to apply the "kosher" label to my cheeseburger. After all, it doesn't hurt your food and your synagogue can still refuse to offer my cheeseburgers.
Previous 11 - 20 Next