 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Judging by stats today? The foundation is just as likely to be Divorce as it is to be Marriage. 50% goes both ways, bub. (...) The foundation of what? {Your} idea of what the US should be? Ignoring the fact that it is a 20C construct? (...) (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) That really depends on the animal - the smarter they are the more they can move away from "instinct". My bird can put words, individuals, and activities together without me attempting to teach him in the slightest. The dog can do the same, if (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Take a look around. I think you are denying the obvious. What would you assert the foundation of our society is? (...) (snip) (...) I didn't say it was the norm, just the foundation. (...) I doubt it. Cultures with strong, nuclear families (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Could it be because latin cultures are fundamentally matriarchal? Pedro (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Really? Do tell... (...) I don't exactly know what reality you live in anymore, John (if I ever did), but I've got news for you - the Nuclear Family is a 20th C construct, and it is falling by the wayside. It is anything BUT the norm anymore. (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Then we disagree. (...) Yes, but neither are you "all for" sex either, unless you are willing to advocate beastiality, incest, etc. You draw your lines, I draw mine. There is no difference except in degree. (...) Of course. Do you have another (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) I don't think so. (...) You're "all for" sex with only one partner, of only one certain sex, in only certain ways, under only certain circumstances. Right? (...) To start, I'm assuming that you agree with American Heritage in that the nuclear (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) I'm surrounded by Abrahmics. I'm not sure if I have enough perspective to verify what you're saying. My experiences with Indians (fairly extensive across fifteen years in university and IT) do lead me to believe that they (at least the ones (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: (snipping) (...) It is a misnomer to characterize the Judeo-Christian tradition as antisexual. We are all for sex, but within the context of marriage. Sex outside of marriage erodes at the institution (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) This is a really good question, and I hadn't thought about it in those terms. I guess I would have to note, as you suggest, that attempts to reinvent sexuality (or the expression thereof) are met with vigorous resistence, often by the very (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hallowed be his name, part III
|
|
(...) Yikes! He'd have to be Ronald Wilson Schuler the 3rd, then--both my father and I are first-born sons, too! Dave! (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Hallowed be his name, part III
|
|
(...) Ronald Wilson Schuler has a nice ring to it... Chris (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) What is the link you see (or want to see) between time-in-culture and publicity? Maybe the fact that religion keeps reinventing itself is specifically why it stays newsworthy while human sexuality is mostly static. (And note that when we do (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the sane out there
|
|
(...) I'll say that. When "one's will" is the pursuit of basic human rights and every other avenue of approach has been reasonably exploited to no avail. It's not like they just want extra chocolates or something. (...) The right to worship is a (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hallowed be his name, part III
|
|
(...) No harm done--it gave me quite a chuckle, actually! (...) Nice! Dave! (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hallowed be his name, part III
|
|
(...) My bad. I think I need to adjust the settings on my sarcasm filter. (Sorry for the misinterpretation!) The whole putting Reagan on the dollar reminds me of the push to add him to Mt. Rushmore back when he left office. (...) And I keep telling (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hallowed be his name, part III
|
|
(...) I'm curious as to why you thought that this assertion, of all of them, was serious! Aren't you more worried about the mandatory renaming of firstborn sons? (...) You're related to our current president? That's so cool! Dave! (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hallowed be his name, part III
|
|
(...) This is absolutely the most absurd statement I have ever read here on LUGNET! Your memory must be as bad as Ollie North's. I can still vividly remember the outrage that I felt watching North's congressional testimony about Iran/Contra. His (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The Torturers Among Us
|
|
Count on a professional newspaper columnist to articulate so clearly what I have been saying for the past three years. The Bush Administration has abused the 9/11 tragedy as an excuse to engage in a deplorable deterioration of human rights. The (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the sane out there
|
|
(...) Of course it was a joke silly. In the same way as Dave!'s assertion was a joke. But in Lar's special way, its also a jab. And I happenned to be feeling a bit anti-establishment, defender of the oppressed at the time. Its all this reading about (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
