guyser Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Sounds like you never dated either. This is when machismo is most predominant. But when your single machismo mysteriously disappears and is replaced with common sense. Ow...ow...I have been hurt. I have never dated. Lived with a woman for five years doesnt count I guess? Maschismo be damned. Two things women will never have to worry about with me. One is-dont cook, I am great at it and will do it all the time. #2-leave your laundry on top of mine. I like doing it. Quote
Black Dog Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 So, basically, marriage as an instituition fell apart as soon as all things propping it up were kicked away (no-fault divorce probably being the biggest nail ion the coffin). Seems to me that if traditional marriage needs to be propped up by exclusionary government policies and so forth, it's not really worth defending. It's kinda like how Leafless talks about Canada being a Christian country, without mentioning the fact that the WASP dominance came about through the systemic exclusion of other groups. Quote
Figleaf Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Traditional marriage is failing---WHY? First, why, in the title of the thread here, do you assume that blame should be involved? Second, is traditional marriage really failing? People keep getting married, as far as I can tell. Quote
Figleaf Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Well, it's a fact. The building blocks that have created Canada up until recently have been created by religious marriage unions. Leafless, you really don't care what sort of spurious nonsense you emit, do you? Let's see ... Was Canada built by the sweat and blood of coureurs du bois? NO!, it was built by religious marriages. Was Canada built by pragmatic politics and good government? NO!, it was built by religious marriages. Was Canada built by hardy prairie settlers? NO!, it was built by religious marriages. HOO r L.U.d.i.ck.rus. Why be married, when there is no real credit for being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN when you are no more recognized or respected for your efforts, than someone shacked up or living common law or simply having Canada's population replaced with non-Caucasian third world foreign immigrants? Personally, I'm married because I found a wonderful person who agreed to by my wife and lifelong companion. No-one promised me any social privileges would go along with it. [blah blah blah]... the country being transformed into a multicultural Pandora's box. You leave my sister out of this. Quote
Leafless Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Posted March 5, 2007 It's kinda like how Leafless talks about Canada being a Christian country, without mentioning the fact that the WASP dominance came about through the systemic exclusion of other groups. Are WASP the only group in Canada capable of trying to maintain a certain identity? What about Aboriginals and Quebecers? Or Blacks that continually play out reverse discrimination the same type of crap they accuse the White guys of doing. It seems the only group that does not have an identity, are White Catholics, who are forced to take a back seat and pay the bills for all other dominating groups. Talk about calling the kettle black! Quote
Leafless Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Posted March 5, 2007 Traditional marriage is failing---WHY? First, why, in the title of the thread here, do you assume that blame should be involved? Second, is traditional marriage really failing? People keep getting married, as far as I can tell. Do you and BD work the same shift? Yep, people are getting married and according to your logic this makes marriage successful. Brilliant! Quote
Black Dog Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Talk about calling the kettle black! When you start hearing about immigration quotas or head taxes on whites, or see white people rounded up and herded into reservations, you might have a point about "reverse discrimination." But you won't and you don't. Quote
Leafless Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Posted March 5, 2007 Personally, I'm married because I found a wonderful person who agreed to by my wife and lifelong companion. No-one promised me any social privileges would go along with it. No one promised you any social privileges because there are already an abundance of social privileges that were simply there for the taking. You just don't appreciate what Canada has to offer that you automatically gain in the way of social privileges living in Canada. All the hard work as already been taken care of by the people who founded this country initially and built up to what it is to-day, prior to the Charter. What we are talking about primarily, is the failure of marriage due to an unmanageable set of societal circumstances that the federal government choose to stay out of, which is one of the main reasons regarding the failure, pertaining to a lasting marriage. Quote
Charles Anthony Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 What we are talking about primarily, is the failure of marriage due to an unmanageable set of societal circumstances that the federal government choose to stay out of, which is one of the main reasons regarding the failure, pertaining to a lasting marriage.You want government to get into marriage??I hate to ask: where do you need the help? Seems to me that if traditional marriage needs to be propped up by exclusionary government policies and so forth, it's not really worth defending.Interesting concept. If only we could apply that to everything else the "government" does. It is kind of like how FigLeaf talks about everybody being involved with government without mentioning the fact that the government dominance came about through the systemic exclusion of other services. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Leafless Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Posted March 5, 2007 Talk about calling the kettle black! When you start hearing about immigration quotas or head taxes on whites, or see white people rounded up and herded into reservations, you might have a point about "reverse discrimination." But you won't and you don't. Say RACIAL PROFILING! With a straight face. Or see people rounded up and herded into reservations, immigration quotas, head taxes on Whites! What unadulterated BS. Aboriginals are free to live anywhere in Canada if they choose. Quote
Leafless Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Posted March 5, 2007 What we are talking about primarily, is the failure of marriage due to an unmanageable set of societal circumstances that the federal government choose to stay out of, which is one of the main reasons regarding the failure, pertaining to a lasting marriage.You want government to get into marriage??I hate to ask: where do you need the help? No I don't want government directly getting into marriage either but they have anyways with SSM big time. Sure, stay out of the bedrooms of the nation. I would like to see government support the concept of marriage as they are the ones complaining of a declining birth rate. You would assume the government would be able to possess the intellect to be able to figure this out themselves. Since couples are both required to work these days, all couples do not have the financial resources to consider a family with expensive housing being a problem along with the fact all couples don't like the idea of leaving their children with day care workers. You can couple this with values that have been destroyed, by government and business that discourage family unity. These are a few areas that could be attended to. Quote
Charles Anthony Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 You would assume the government would be able to possess the intellect to be able to figure this out themselves.That would be the last assumption I would ever make. You can couple this with values that have been destroyed, by government and business that discourage family unity. These are a few areas that could be attended to. What do you suggest? Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Figleaf Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 It seems the only group that does not have an identity, are White Catholics, who are forced to take a back seat and pay the bills for all other dominating groups. Give us an example, or indeed any other sort of support for that assertion, if you can. Quote
Figleaf Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 Yep, people are getting married and according to your logic this makes marriage successful. Brilliant! Well, what logic do you use to conclude marriage is failing? Quote
Figleaf Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 Personally, I'm married because I found a wonderful person who agreed to by my wife and lifelong companion. No-one promised me any social privileges would go along with it. No one promised you any social privileges because there are already an abundance of social privileges that were simply there for the taking. You just don't appreciate what Canada has to offer that you automatically gain in the way of social privileges living in Canada. You have lost the thread of this topic. You said, why would anyone get married since there are no privileges related to it. I say, I got married for its own reasons, not extraneous ideas of marital privileges. All the hard work as already been taken care of by the people who founded this country initially and built up to what it is to-day, prior to the Charter. Your hatred for the Charter is illogical. The Charter is the outgrowth of the same founding and guiding Canadian principles that you extol so vehemently before 1980. The Charter didn't change Canadians' principles, it simply forces the government to respect those principles. Seriously, what can you dislike about the Charter? Freedom of expression? How awful! Freedom of conscience and religion? Yuck! Equal rights for everyone? BARF! Yeah, Leafless, that Charter is really full of total insanity, eh. Give me a break. What we are talking about primarily, is the failure of marriage due to an unmanageable set of societal circumstances that the federal government choose to stay out of, ... Are you calling for a federal social engineering effort? Quote
guyser Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 Let's see ... Was Canada built by the sweat and blood of coureurs du bois? NO!, it was built by religious marriages. Was Canada built by pragmatic politics and good government? NO!, it was built by religious marriages. Was Canada built by hardy prairie settlers? NO!, it was built by religious marriages. You leave my sister out of this. You forgot the Chinese built the railway, and the Italians built Toronto. Your sister says hi ! Quote
Liam Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 No I don't want government directly getting into marriage either but they have anyways with SSM big time. Sure, stay out of the bedrooms of the nation. I would like to see government support the concept of marriage as they are the ones complaining of a declining birth rate. You would assume the government would be able to possess the intellect to be able to figure this out themselves. Since couples are both required to work these days, all couples do not have the financial resources to consider a family with expensive housing being a problem along with the fact all couples don't like the idea of leaving their children with day care workers. You can couple this with values that have been destroyed, by government and business that discourage family unity. These are a few areas that could be attended to. Government is getting out of peoples' bedrooms. That's the point. Before SSM, the government was directly involved in discriminating against certain kinds of people. By legalizing SSM, government has finally gotten out of the way of peoples' personal relationships. Something tells me that if government did something to make housing incredibly affordable, you'd find a way of blaming government for making it cheaper for couples to split up and live apart. Quote
Figleaf Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 What we are talking about primarily, is the failure of marriage due to an unmanageable set of societal circumstances that the federal government choose to stay out of, which is one of the main reasons regarding the failure, pertaining to a lasting marriage.You want government to get into marriage??I hate to ask: where do you need the help? Seems to me that if traditional marriage needs to be propped up by exclusionary government policies and so forth, it's not really worth defending.Interesting concept. If only we could apply that to everything else the "government" does. It is kind of like how FigLeaf talks about everybody being involved with government without mentioning the fact that the government dominance came about through the systemic exclusion of other services. Riiiiight, because we live in a totalitarian state and government IMPOSED those services on the people, rather than people electing those governments to carry out such activities. There's an air of unreality around Libertarian complaint frankly, that ignores the fact that people want their governments to do things. Quote
Figleaf Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 What we are talking about primarily, is the failure of marriage due to an unmanageable set of societal circumstances that the federal government choose to stay out of, which is one of the main reasons regarding the failure, pertaining to a lasting marriage.You want government to get into marriage??I hate to ask: where do you need the help? No I don't want government directly getting into marriage either but they have anyways with SSM big time. The government is no more involved in marriage due to SSM than it was before SSM. Marriage is a federally defined and legislated matter. It still is, and is no more regulated than it was before SSM. Less, in fact, since a previous restriction has been removed. I would like to see government support the concept of marriage as they are the ones complaining of a declining birth rate. I agree that if a declining birth rate is a concern, then government should act on it. But then it needs to promote childbirth specifically, not pursue your marriage tangent. Quote
Catchme Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 It's kinda like how Leafless talks about Canada being a Christian country, without mentioning the fact that the WASP dominance came about through the systemic exclusion of other groups. Are WASP the only group in Canada capable of trying to maintain a certain identity? What about Aboriginals and Quebecers? Or Blacks that continually play out reverse discrimination the same type of crap they accuse the White guys of doing. It seems the only group that does not have an identity, are White Catholics, who are forced to take a back seat and pay the bills for all other dominating groups. Talk about calling the kettle black! What bills are white catholi paying for me? Oh yes that would be none. If marriage needs government propping, then it has NO ability to stand on its own as a function. It is funny how some argue that the government should stay out of our lives, but then wants government intervention where they feel it should be. And that seems to be the areas of freedom of conscience and action. When growing up in Bible belt Saskatchewan, most often the only time people went to church was for weddings, including the Bride and groom. Sure enough, the communties had the church faithful that attended every Sunday, but for the most part pews sat empty. Marriage in the form we know it, came about with the agricultural revolution, where men wanted access to woman's progenity for a access to a labour pool. It was basically an official contract of ownership of the woman and children. Would you agree that our jurisprudence framework comes from the Roman Empire? Quote When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
Mad_Michael Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 Without a doubt, divorce is the cause. Quote
Black Dog Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 Say RACIAL PROFILING!With a straight face. Or see people rounded up and herded into reservations, immigration quotas, head taxes on Whites! What unadulterated BS. Aboriginals are free to live anywhere in Canada if they choose. Purple! Monkey! Dishwasher! Seriously I have no idea what you're blabbering about. It's obvious that you've completely missed the point I was getting at. C'est la vie. Quote
Leafless Posted March 6, 2007 Author Report Posted March 6, 2007 It seems the only group that does not have an identity, are White Catholics, who are forced to take a back seat and pay the bills for all other dominating groups. Give us an example, or indeed any other sort of support for that assertion, if you can. Are White, English speaking Catholics forcing the federal government to make constitutional changes or force federal intervention to accommodate their views? Jews have, Muslims have, Francophone's have, Aboriginals have, Blacks have etc. etc. etc. Quote
Leafless Posted March 6, 2007 Author Report Posted March 6, 2007 I agree that if a declining birth rate is a concern, then government should act on it. But then it needs to promote childbirth specifically, not pursue your marriage tangent. You always have such accommodating anti-Christian views, concerning the moralistic character of this country. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.