Posted on 06/26/2015 12:40:06 PM PDT by Marie
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
But then we let females vote and permeate and even dominate every facet of our society. 'Feelings'.. Nothing but 'feelings'..
The fact is that is employers were not forced into providing spousal benefits like medical insurance instead of people paying for their own damned insurance the homosexuals (I refuse to call such depressed and depraved people ‘gay’) would not have demanded civil unions.
I think employer mandated anything is unconstitutional.
Very well stated, Marie!
My Progressive “Christian” friends make this argument all the time. They say that marriage was destroyed long ago, so we don’t have a right to care if the gays urinate on the ruins.
But wait...my wife and I have been married 32 years, so we did “do marriage right”. So I do have a dog in this fight and a right to talk about what a marriage should be. It isn’t two pillow-biters or carpet-munchers who want to play house and share healthcare plans.
It’s the government’s obligation to enforce contracts. The State has an interest in monogamy because monogamy reduces illegitimate, impoverished children and the spread of disease.
But we weakened the contract so that there’s really nothing left to enforce.
So why cry when others want the benefits without a price?
If you don’t agree that marriage is a legal contract - then why bother to be upset when the SC rules that anyone can have the benefits of marriage without paying any price? What’s the problem?
My friend is right that WE’VE hollowed out the institution to the point where people can wander in and out at will without fear of consequence. She’s also right that it wasn’t always this way. In the past, straying from marriage meant pain. Hell, there was no such thing as divorce until King Henry. Marriage was a lifetime commitment. The very thought of breaking the unbreakable bond was unthinkable.
Now people can walk away just because they’re ‘not quite feelin’ it.’
If marriage means so little to US, then why do we give a crap about anyone else who chooses to throw a party and say, “I’m married!”
Hell, at this point, a couple of kids playing in a playhouse has the same weight of commitment that marriage has today.
Freedom of speech loss comes next.
You think that no-fault divorce was part of a plot to create gay marriage?
Adults didn’t want to have to lie and make up stories to get a divorce, from the government.
“We created no-fault divorce …
No, liberals did. And those who engage and engaged in it are liberals.” UHH NO Ronald Reagan AND the DOUCHBAG “State of CaliPornia” did and the rest of the DUMBA$$ “states” FOLLOWED!
Sorry, Marie, your pal’s post is just dumb.
Better true love than the kind of marriage for life that exists in Saudi Arabia and better true love than the loveless, sex-obsessed, gay male perversion of marriage.
I’m a long-time married Conservative who has maintained her marriage vows as has my husband. It’s easy, generally, if you marry for love and companionship.
“We decriminalized infidelity. We created no-fault divorce. We wanted all of the benefits, without all those messy obligations.”
Bingo, and not even a small slice of “conservatives” want to address those problems. Every time I make a similar comment around here, I maybe get one reply in support and the rest is *crickets*.
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.See how tortured the language gets in an attempt to justify the position.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. …
— Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2
Since when did conservatives sanction any of that? Liberals instituted them.
The state is not a party in my marriage. It’s entirely between me, my wife, and God. It is not a contract in the conventional sense.
Marriage won’t “mean something” again until the extended family, not the post-war convention of the nuclear family, returns to the center of our social lives.
For that to happen, our current narcissistic, atomistic society will need to collapse (this is simply a matter of time). It could be many generations after that before humanity rediscovers the obvious.
My wife and I have 3 kids who we homeschooled. We have been married for almost 23 years. We have done it without any assistance from the State, the Church or anyone else. Our commitment is between two people. It requires no State, Church or any one else to protect it, make it succeed or to validate it.
Separating marriage, sex, procreation, and family from one another will only cause societal harm. Doesn’t matter whether the state is instrumental in this failure, or the individual.
No Fault Divorce Legislation Hurts Women
Marcia A. Pappas, President, NOW NYS, Inc.
Lillian Kozak & Gloria Jacobs, Co-Chairs of NOW NYS, Inc.
“Proponents of the bill argue that there is no need to “air the dirty laundry” in court. But advocates in the
women’s movement know the importance of allowing the judges to hear the facts, behaviors and circumstances
that led to the break-up of the marriage.
There is much need for change to the current Domestic Relations Law before we send the weaker party and the
children afloat on the sea of no fault induced poverty, as was the case in California, the first state to introduce no-fault divorce.”
Do you think no fault divorce was an accident?
You really think President Reagan thought gay marriage when he started the no fault divorce system? I don’t. And it is embarrassing when some idiot married 3 times complains about any kind of marriage...yes trump.
It marked the 40th anniversary of the no-fault divorce, first introduced in California in 1970. California’s law (signed by then-Governor Ronald Reagan, himself a divorcee) was followed by similar laws in many states in the 1970s and early ‘80s Today, all states except New York offer some form of no-fault divorce.
“And those who engage and engaged in it are liberals.”
Ha! Tell that to Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh.
Absolute nonsense, the opposite is true.
That is why men are terrified of marrying, once you marry in modern America, then the woman and her government, own you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.