Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 98 of 98
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    I am sad that you feel this way. Divorces happen for a variety of reasons, least of which, I suspect, is due to lack of commitment.

    And this thinking "attacks" only the young? C'mon!..
    My son said the same thing to me about commitment.

    If a couple is truly committed to a marriage, there is no other reason that would compel them to get divorced.

    Our Grandparents faced the same challenges that todays couple face in a marriage. The divorce option was open to them just as it is today. The only difference between then and now is commitment and societal stigma which boils down to a lack of respect for the institution of marriage in today's society.

    I clipped this from the papers a few weeks ago. I think it makes my point.

    Mom Wants Excitement
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    I am sad that you feel this way. Divorces happen for a variety of reasons, least of which, I suspect, is due to lack of commitment.

    And this thinking "attacks" only the young? C'mon!..
    It does not attack anyone but from where I sit, everyone else is "young."
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    I am sad that you feel this way. Divorces happen for a variety of reasons, least of which, I suspect, is due to lack of commitment.
    There is commitment to one's spouse, necessary but not sufficient. One must also be committed to the institution of marriage. It is this last that gets one over the inevitable difficult times in a relationship.
    Last edited by whmurray; 11/07/2004 at 03:49 PM.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    With all due respect, John, comparing generations and ages (my parents did this; my grandparents did that; our forefathers did this...) on the divorce issue is a classic: Apples and Oranges. Stigma then and now is fine, but divorces do happen for MANY reasons (money, lack of intellectual and physical engagements, boredom, and so on). What does it mean "commitment" and "respect" to the institution anyway? If for 20 years a couple is committed to their marriage and then get a divorce, are you saying that their 20 years of marriage were not a commitment? Rather than looking at the termination of marriage, consider the duration of the marriage itself: The "stuff" that took place while the marriage existed. I hope you'd agree with me that just because there were less divorces few years back, it doesn't mean that people were "more committed" (I bet cheating and spoilage was similar to current lifestyle).
    I noticed, as I get older myself, that I tend to say things like: "Wow, my generation wouldn't dare saying this..." It is tempting to compare but it is often counterproductive.
    Perhaps we differ on the what we mean by "commitment". I am referring to a commitment to the marriage being lifelong. Mormons, commit to marriage beyond the grave.

    I agree that infidelity and many other things reflect a lack of commitment but I view these as more of a lack of commitment to ones partner. If i were to have an affair, I am showing a lack of respect and commitment to my wife. If my wife discovers the affair but continues the marriage she is showing a commitment to marriage, and I am one lucky B to have her.

    All I am saying is that our Grandparents weathered these storms because they believed that divorce was not an option. They respected the institution.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh

    All I am saying is that our Grandparents weathered these storms because they believed that divorce was not an option. They respected the institution.
    They also weathered them in part because life was short and brutal. When life expectancy is 83 instead of 45, "til death do us part" is a greater commitment.
  6. #86  
    Looking back at the last couple of generations before you can give you a distorted picture that "this is how things always have been". Marriage became much stricter during the Victorian period. If you dig back in your family history I can guarantee that you will find illegitimate ancestors, for example. Marriage now isn't what it always was, but before then it wasn't always what it became (if you see what I mean). Near here marriages didn't end in divorce - they ended in the wife being auctioned off! I'm not joking. The reason was people couldn't afford lawyers, that's one reason they didn't get divorced, it's not that they didn't want to. They just had a different way of doing it.

    One of my ancestors, about three hundred years ago, got sued for sexual harrassment! Didn't happen in Victorian times...
    Animo et Fide
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    They also weathered them in part because life was short and brutal. When life expectancy is 83 instead of 45, "til death do us part" is a greater commitment.
    True, but I don't think short was an issue. Everyone thinks they are going to live forever and the 3 sets of Grandparents at my sons wedding were all in there 80s with over 150 years of marriage between them.

    Brutal, however, makes a very good point. I do think that the easy life most americans live compared to our Grandparents does contribute to a more laissez fair approach to all our commitments, not just marriage. There are many reasons that Marriage does not hold the same respect today as it once did, but I don't think one can deny that respect for the institution is and has been on the decline over the last 30 to 40 years.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Looking back at the last couple of generations before you can give you a distorted picture that "this is how things always have been". Marriage became much stricter during the Victorian period. If you dig back in your family history I can guarantee that you will find illegitimate ancestors, for example. Marriage now isn't what it always was, but before then it wasn't always what it became (if you see what I mean). Near here marriages didn't end in divorce - they ended in the wife being auctioned off! I'm not joking. The reason was people couldn't afford lawyers, that's one reason they didn't get divorced, it's not that they didn't want to. They just had a different way of doing it.

    One of my ancestors, about three hundred years ago, got sued for sexual harrassment! Didn't happen in Victorian times...
    Good points all. My mother sent all us kids a short history of our family on her side. She is Brazilian and so it stretched back to Portugal. Not exactly representative of our american culture but It was hysterical. If made into a movie today it would almost need to be rated X.
  9. #89  
    You are so wrong here and buddy so, so wrong. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. Always. Whether motivated by wealth, power, love, whatever, it has always been between a man and a woman. Not a man/man or a woman/woman. Never.

    As for the common person, it has been traditionally based on love and committment. To ask me to sanction homosexual marriage, to accept it as the norm, it is not going to happen. Go to Europe, not here. In fact, it is only in Europe, the rest of the world is not nearly so messed up.

    With the re-election of President George W. Bush, there is a clear mandate from the majority of Americans, the average guys and gals, that they want traditional values to be an important part of their lives. We do not advocate cramming our values down the throats of others; though we really hate it when the other side forces it upon us. We are a country of morals and laws. Those morals are based on judeo-christian principals and our laws based upon those same principals with the majority's consent. So, if you do not like it, then hit Canada or Europe and do not let the door hit you in the rear.

    To think that that majority has to bow down to the vocal minority and gosh, you are the minority by a substantial factor, you have something else coming to you. The only way you can get your way is via activist judges, those that make law as they go instead of intrepeting it based on the Consitution. Judges intrepet, laws makers make laws and we the people select those that represent us. Given the opportunity to get your way legislatively equates to it never, ever happening.

    Ben

    ------------

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    The young believe that the world has always been as they found it. I will just have to ask you to accept my word when I tell you that modern marriage is as far from marriage of a hundred, or even fifty, years ago, as a definition that included gay marriage would be from what you think of as marriage. Fifty years ago they would have hung us if we had told them that in only fifty years more marriages would end in divorce than in death (do us part).
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    You are so wrong here and buddy so, so wrong. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. Always. Whether motivated by wealth, power, love, whatever, it has always been between a man and a woman. Not a man/man or a woman/woman. Never.
    bclinder, I think you misread whmurray's post. He is absolutely right. Marriage is different today then it was 50 years ago. We, and I assume this includes you, do not want to see it continue to change in the direction it has over the last 50 years. Whether he intended it or not, I think his comment supports our desire to constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a women.

    You obviously have strong opinions on this subject but I think you have to temper your argument or I fear you will push some on the fence away from you position. The best way to do this is to respect the opinon of the other side. Telling them to move to canada if they don't like it doesn't help.

    I chuckled to myself the other day as I reflected on the campaign. I think GW won this election because of his calm, consistent, repetition of his position not matter the subject. Contrast this to the other side by recalling images of various folks campaigning for Kerry and Kerry himself....

    Al Gore... screaming at the top of his lungs "He lied, he deceived.....
    John Dean... Yeeeee Ha!
    Ted Kennedy... Kerry's attack dog
    Michael Moore... 'nuff said
    John Kerry... hysterically jumping on the missing weapons in the final days

    Even when attacking John Kerry, GW's supporters did so for the most part calmly even while under attack themselves. A prime example for this is the Swift Boat Vets. One would be hard pressed to find a more calm but consistent individual then John O'Neill. In numerous interviews after being hysterically attacked, Mr. O'Neill always responded quietly and with conviction. Another example is an Interview of Michelle Malkan by Chris Matthews. Matthews was litterally spitting like a mad dog in his attack and Miss Matthews calmly and quietly responded as best she could.

    So you see, a calm collected approach paying due respect to the opposing opinion will serve us best.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by fmertz
    Junior has never received my vote. His arrogance and complete whiff on leading us will result in great pain in about 10 years. While defeating terrorism is number one, he has spent the lives of my fellow warriors and our money in a diversion that is sucking money and focus from our second and third priorities.
    -->>>>
    You speak of arrogance? How would you characterize Kerry? During the debats, Kerry spoke to the moderator, never to the audiance and never to the nation. Find one of the debates and listen. You just can't miss it.

    We are at war and frankly, wars are expensive. When looking at our gross national product and the cost of the war, it is not something that will hurt us financially. Not fighting the war and getting hit again will hurt us much more than the cost of the war.

    -->>>



    We must do something about the deficit. People, please read about the looming crisis that will devastate our economy. The current devaluation of the dollar is just the beginning. We are in greatest debt to the countries that want to do us the greatest harm - China for instance. His priorities for the second term will make this situation even more grave. Find room in your fears for this, for just like another attack will happen, this too will happen.

    -->>>
    The deficit and its per centage of the GNP is not significant. It has been higher in the past and was higher at one point during the feel good years of Clinton. Your statement concerning China though, I must agree - China's economy is growing as is its military abilities.

    -->>>





    We must transition from oil to an alternative source(s). Not only for the sake of our environment, but also to rid ourselves of depending on the destructive nations of the middle east. They have a 50 year or more problem to solve. It is not something we can enforce. They must work out the intolerance and centrality of their religious extremism - the west did that in the 1500's. The moderates there must do this from within. Why spend $10 billion on an oil field that will someday, according to all estimates, end? Letís spend $10 billion on finding a sustainable energy source.

    -->>>
    Those alternative sources - are you willing to spend the money to develop them? How about the building of a wind mill, do you want one right next door to you? What about the building of a natural gas station next to you. What about developing hydroelectric power even further - gosh, won't that just kill the rivers? How about using waste products - another incenerator in your back yard. I bet you will yell when it gets built - NOT IN MY BACK YARD.

    -->>>



    What if we had spent $200 billion in Afghanistan rebuilding? We could not be accused of going after oil, as they have little. Almost every nation on Earth felt we had every right to pound Afghanistan and go after the terrorists. Now, whatever your feelings, we do not have a clear mandate. No matter how you argue, we are less righteous.

    -->>>>
    Not rebuilding Afghanistan will cost us more than what we have spent. Our "clear mandate" from other countries, and I assume that is what you are speaking of, means nothing. The mandate that means something is from the people of America. I am part of that mandate. The protection of my country is very important to me. Hey, let's pull totally out of Europe, remove all economic aid to the rest of the world, support only ourselves, and see what the UN says. See what Europe says. US presence is the only thing that kept Europe out of the grips of Russia. US presence is the only thing that keeps those nasty, aggressive countries from doing their thing. US presence is the stabilizing factor around the world. It sure is not the presence of French troops.

    -->>>





    I agree with whmurray, he won because we are afraid. A greater leader said that fearing was the worst fear of all. Iím tired of being afraid, and Iím tired of trying to find someone to blame. Americans are doers, builders, and dreamers. We are going to find that worthless piece of crap, and because we are Americans, we will take him to a court of law. We will find Zarqawi, and if he chooses to fight, he will certainly die. If not, he too will face the rule of law. As much as I want just 10 minutes with that *******, his soul will find greater torment if he finds we mean what we preach.

    -->>>
    Sure we voted for Bush due to fear. We sure did not vote for Kerry because of fear. We heard Kerry changing positions more times that there are seconds in a day. We heard Kerry say, "I have a plan..." on every issue under God's beautiful sun and at no time, did he ever detail any of his plans. He stated he would fight a more sensitive war on terrorism. Wow, I chocked on that.

    I voted for Bush due to far. I voted for Bush because of his committment to the safety of the US versus the wishes of the world. I voted for Bush because he never has waivered toward his over-all goals. Never. I voted for Bush because Kerry is a traitor - the Viet Nam era. I voted for Bush because Kerry met with the North Vietnamese in Paris and dang, did he deny and deny it until one day in March (?) he was forced to admit to the meeting. I voted for Bush because he believes in keeping the government from making itself the center of our lives. I voted for Bush because Kerry wants the government to be our lives. I voted for Bush because Kerry never waivered on his support for paratial-birth abortion ---- murder and nothing less. I voted for Bush because he believes the government should not pay for abortions. I voted for Bush because he belives aborition is a state's rights issue, not a federal issue. I voted for Bush because he spoke to me during the debates - Kerry to the moderator. I voted for Bush because Michael Moore does not represent anything I stand for. I voted for Bush because MoveOn.org and its creator, Billionaire Socialist George, thinks I, middle American, am an ***** and stupid and need to be told how to do everything. I voted for Bush because Michael Moore's version of the truth is nothing short of a lie. The list continues for miles and miles and miles.


    ---->>>>

    Ian, become a citizen. Vote. And learn to love this wonderfully crazy place that is the last great hope of mankind. If we donít get it right here, then Iím afraid it will not be done.

    -->>>

    Your version of right is a bit different from mine. My version of right has a higher level of support than your version of right. Your version of right sees nothing good in America. Your version of right is pessimism. My version of right sees what is good in America and the optimism around us. My version of right does not require Hollywood to define the country.

    --...
    Take care!

    Ben
  12. #92  
    Ok. It is a shame that we have to address marriage in any manner by the government. As a last result we are consitutionally defining it and in this last election cycle, ten states made it an issue, an issue made an issue by the left.

    Marriage may be different, but not substantially. It is different because when I was growing up, mom did not have to have an outside job. Mom stayed home and took care of the kids. Nowadays, this is rare. My wife stayed home with the first son and could not with the other two. So, ok on that.

    The Swift Boat campaign was wonderfully done and so were the documentaries done in light of it. We were not subjected to yelling and statements about how stupid the public is.

    Telling someone to move to Canada means just that. The US looks at its role differently than other countries do. Canada is an important ally of this country and is definitely an important trading partner. We do though differ on the postion of government in our day-to-day lives. We also are out on the front line against terrorism while Canada sits and does nothing. I wonder what Canada would have done if it had been attacked as the US was.

    Your description of the people below matches some of mine in previous posts. The left described the right in much more colorful and derogatory language than the conservatives described the left.

    Chris Matthews - I watched/listened to a number of his interviews and was initially shocked and totally turned of to him and his methods. It was fascinating to watch him as Kerry was going down. Dang shame to be a reporter and to act as he did. Nasty.

    Points well taken. However, there are times when a straight forward response is needed. Politely saying it time after time may be nice, but it gets old when those it is addressed to do not get the point. They say the same thing time after time even when their "facts" and support is not there.

    Ben

    ------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    bclinder, I think you misread whmurray's post. He is absolutely right. Marriage is different today then it was 50 years ago. We, and I assume this includes you, do not want to see it continue to change in the direction it has over the last 50 years. Whether he intended it or not, I think his comment supports our desire to constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a women.

    You obviously have strong opinions on this subject but I think you have to temper your argument or I fear you will push some on the fence away from you position. The best way to do this is to respect the opinon of the other side. Telling them to move to canada if they don't like it doesn't help.

    I chuckled to myself the other day as I reflected on the campaign. I think GW won this election because of his calm, consistent, repetition of his position not matter the subject. Contrast this to the other side by recalling images of various folks campaigning for Kerry and Kerry himself....

    Al Gore... screaming at the top of his lungs "He lied, he deceived.....
    John Dean... Yeeeee Ha!
    Ted Kennedy... Kerry's attack dog
    Michael Moore... 'nuff said
    John Kerry... hysterically jumping on the missing weapons in the final days

    Even when attacking John Kerry, GW's supporters did so for the most part calmly even while under attack themselves. A prime example for this is the Swift Boat Vets. One would be hard pressed to find a more calm but consistent individual then John O'Neill. In numerous interviews after being hysterically attacked, Mr. O'Neill always responded quietly and with conviction. Another example is an Interview of Michelle Malkan by Chris Matthews. Matthews was litterally spitting like a mad dog in his attack and Miss Matthews calmly and quietly responded as best she could.

    So you see, a calm collected approach paying due respect to the opposing opinion will serve us best.
  13. #93  
    It is the progressive thought and foresight of justices like Marshall and Brennan that rid of school segregartion and promoted free speech, respectively. You may call them activist judges; however, adjudication inherently is activist. Interpreting the law is activist. Social jurisprudence is context sensitive, and the context is everchanging. And it is because of the actions of righteous individuals like Dr. King, Gandhi, the Marshalls and the Brennans that some of my friends don't ride in the back of the bus or play in a separate playground or crack corn like Jimmy.

    I respect your views. I have a problem with the way you express them as well as the solutions you propose for your [liberal] adversaries.

    While I am deeply disillusioned by the GOP triple crown victory (White House, House and Senate), as a progressive liberal I will not back down on matters that I feel are morally right and socially responsible.

    I'm not done yet; on to my comments below...

    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Ok. It is a shame that we have to address marriage in any manner by the government. As a last result we are consitutionally defining it and in this last election cycle, ten states made it an issue, an issue made an issue by the left.
    It is an issue because it has reached critical mass. The human being is not stagnant or passive by nature. Social and cultural advancements are inevitable. While some folks are trying to hang onto [whatever] conservative values, others are evaluating and testing the landscape in order to ACCOMMODATE their fellow citizens without imposing, incidentally or otherwise, moral harm, if you will, unto others.

    Marriage may be different, but not substantially. It is different because when I was growing up, mom did not have to have an outside job. Mom stayed home and took care of the kids. Nowadays, this is rare. My wife stayed home with the first son and could not with the other two. So, ok on that.
    The circumstances of when, where and how you were growing up should not dictate or, more importantly, invalidate how others should. My parents had an arranged marriage and are ultra conservative. I get along with them fine. They voted for Kerry (the lesser of two evils), among other things, because they understood that we're in a different time and place. These issues need to be entertained.
    The Swift Boat campaign was wonderfully done and so were the documentaries done in light of it. We were not subjected to yelling and statements about how stupid the public is.
    I agree somewhat. However, Zell Miller went on an unnecessary tirade at the RNC. It was declasse to say the least.
    Telling someone to move to Canada means just that. The US looks at its role differently than other countries do. Canada is an important ally of this country and is definitely an important trading partner. We do though differ on the postion of government in our day-to-day lives. We also are out on the front line against terrorism while Canada sits and does nothing. I wonder what Canada would have done if it had been attacked as the US was.
    Your comments are ignorant and I will leave it at that. I'm sure others (not necessarily here at TC) would agree.
    Your description of the people below matches some of mine in previous posts. The left described the right in much more colorful and derogatory language than the conservatives described the left.
    I agree; however, I felt it was warranted. Whether that ultimately helped the party lose the election is up for debate.
    Chris Matthews - I watched/listened to a number of his interviews and was initially shocked and totally turned of to him and his methods. It was fascinating to watch him as Kerry was going down. Dang shame to be a reporter and to act as he did. Nasty.
    I didn't watch his as "Kerry was going down." Otherwise, I'm not very fond of him.
    ...However, there are times when a straight forward response is needed. Politely saying it time after time may be nice, but it gets old when those it is addressed to do not get the point. They say the same thing time after time even when their "facts" and support is not there.
    I don't quite understand here. A straightforward response should always be NECESSARY. Did you, at points prior, feel that you were sugarcoating your responses? Kinda like not really coming out and saying it or giving the hardline?

    I kinda wish the Bush administration did that a couple of years ago...

    [/QUOTE]
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    All I am saying is that our Grandparents weathered these storms because they believed that divorce was not an option. They respected the institution.
    I am not sure they BELIEVED that the divorce wasn't an option but perhaps society threatened their wishes. They were AFRAID of possible rebuke by society. I bet there were many people (mostly women?) who wanted out of marriage but were stuck in it.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by Dee Zaster
    I am not sure they BELIEVED that the divorce wasn't an option but perhaps society threatened their wishes. They were AFRAID of possible rebuke by society. I bet there were many people (mostly women?) who wanted out of marriage but were stuck in it.
    So true. But I think you make my point. Society exalted marriage and looked down on divorce. It's almost as if we have reversed this today. Well that's an exaggeration but it's not that far off.
  16. #96  
    We mention Zell Miller. What a man. I was brought up a democrat in a familiy that was traditional democrat and voted the party line. I was a registered democrat for years and even voted for Clinton in his first run for the White House. Shortly after his taking office, I started playing closer attention to politics and his past. Wow, what a colorful history. During this time, the democratic party moved itself further to the left, to the point that I was no longer able to consider it my party. As Ronald Reagan put pit, he did not leave the democratic party, the democratic party left him. I felt and still feel
    the same way. Zell Miller's statements are those that I fully support. This last election also shows that many, many people feel the same. The democrats need to look at their position from the middle instead of the left if they wish to regain the following of middle America.

    The "civil rights era" was an important point in our history and though I abhor the thought of the court involving itself in the issue, there frankly was no choice. Something had to be done. However, in this situation, it is not a court issue. The issue is a state's rights issue. We are not making abortion illegal. We want it to be an issue of local concern, not national. No one is hurt by this and no one's civil rights is in jeopardy. The issue is there only because the left wants it to be there. I do not support abortion, though I frankly have no problem if you do. I do not support partial-birth abortion and consider it to be worse than murder. This issue is one of national concern and needs to be addressed on a federal level.

    As a "progressive liberal," it is my hope that you look to see your position(s) advanced through or legislative system instead of the courts. We want seperation within our government and the one arm that does not operate in that manner is our court system.

    Making changes through our legislative branch means everyone wins and necessary compromises made are done to the benefit of everyhone. Changes made through the court system are one-sided and frankly do not represent the wishes of the majority.

    You speak of the triple-crown victory. Maybe that should indicate to you where we as a country stand and where the majority of the country stands. Make no mistake, the majority of this country does not support abortion. The majority of this country does not support the court system making the law. The majority of this country does want to be strong and to use its military to maintain its strength.

    The other side of the coin, specifically organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union wants to bind our hands to such an extent that we are crippled by the "need" to protect everything and everyone, cripple its ability to protectd us against even those who want to destroy this country.

    Ben
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    John, this picture is for you, regarding marriage
  18. #98  
    I voted against Bush. A few reasons follow.
    -Due to his "No Child Left Behind" policy, property taxes in my county increased 45-60% last year and this, in order to pay for the various mandates that the federal government instituted yet does not fund. I know a few people who actually lost their homes because of this, when they couldn't pay the increases. This is big government at its worst.
    -IIRC the federal government system in this country is based in the idea of separation of church and state. Being non-religious, and knowing people of many different faiths, I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with the ":Office of Faith-based Initiatives" (or whatever the correct name is) that Mr. Bush instituted within months of taking office.
    -I do not agree with the practice of sending troops to foreign lands, unable to return home for even a visit, for periods of more than a year. I also do not agree with the practice of sending National Guard troops - which are supposed to be retained on native soil when troops are deployed, essentially as a back-up - into combat areas for the same lengthy tours as regular troops. It is my understanding, tho it may be a misconception, that the NG troops are not being paid to the same level as regulars, but are being required to engage in the same combat activities.
    -I read once that Bush feels no doubt or remorse about the invasion of Iraq. That it was unequivicably the right thing to do. This bothers me greatly, that he is NOT bothered at all at sending Americans into a situation where they may be killed by others, and will have to kill others. Human life appears to mean nothing to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    And like others, let her marry with a same sex union - not marriage. Government does not need to get involved in marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is for the continuation of mankind. Marriage produces children. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other. No way. Let them live together, but do not water down an instution that is the foundation of society and civilization. I am married and proud to be married to a woman and together we have produced three fine children.
    I'm pretty sure it's heterosexual sexual intercourse that produces children. Not marriage. Marriage is a social construct. It's possible to "mate for life" without it.
    Civilization has much more basis in agriculture than it does with marriage. Without farming, groups wouldn't have stopped roaming around following the herd and "civilization" wouldn't have come about.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    My son said the same thing to me about commitment.

    If a couple is truly committed to a marriage, there is no other reason that would compel them to get divorced.

    Our Grandparents faced the same challenges that todays couple face in a marriage. The divorce option was open to them just as it is today. The only difference between then and now is commitment and societal stigma which boils down to a lack of respect for the institution of marriage in today's society.
    what about a lack of respect for the other individual involved?
    I know someone who divorced because her (ex-)husband decided he could sleep with anyone he wanted and still be married. She walked in on them. He wanted her to stay in the relationship; she would have preferred to stay married - i.e. commitment to the relationship -- but because she could never ever trust him again, and the breach of trust was so great, she didn't feel she could stay and keep her self-respect.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions