 鲜花( 2)  鸡蛋( 1)
|
本帖最后由 珠圆玉润 于 2011-10-20 07:42 编辑
: \/ g* B& T/ Y7 u6 f9 u! o) E
& }, N$ v1 l$ W4 ~zt
) f6 W( K8 z& R- z# N" p+ @* [1 AWednesday, July 15, 2009 K: L3 e% D" q) s6 n9 L' X& M
Marriage rates are in decline in Canada despite inclusion of same-sex unions
7 c( ]! V4 O( ^) k2 RStatistics Canada released its report on marriage statistics for 2004 today revealing that a total of 146,242 marriages were registered in Canada, a 0.8% drop from 2003.
v. L$ N m M. z7 U7 V: e P$ i) A4 F
This drop is consistent with a downward trend in marriage rates since 2000.Marriage rates per 1,000 population, including same-sex marriages, breakdown like this:
, t2 ]/ Z: m @7 f' S( r% ]- I4 L) e# K% B
1 n* X7 ]) ]* R! i; N8 C2000 – 5.1
. K; y4 i c2 T( h- @2001 – 4.7. s" h5 X, p9 _2 a. A0 `
2002 – 4.78 H$ ~8 X: q; v
2003 – 4.71 O0 G& ]5 Z! u
2004 – 4.64 ?( P% p" k& f) `
' D- U# g" O) CPrior to 2003, marriage was defined as the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Following provincial court rulings in 2003, vital statistics registries in Ontario and British Columbia started registering marriages of same–sex couples. In 2004, subsequent rulings by courts in five provinces (Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador) and one territory (Yukon) expanded the number of jurisdictions registering same–sex marriages. A court ruling in New Brunswick allowed same–sex marriages, a month before federal legislation legalized same–sex marriages across Canada, on July 20th, 2005. Starting with the year 2003, Statistics Canada publishes data on three types of marriages: opposite–sex marriage, male same–sex marriage and female same–sex marriage. 0 _5 P6 ]% K# v+ h2 G
X+ P; D4 N: p6 e, WThere were 1,369 same-sex marriages registered in 2004.+ {. I7 n$ d% x* ?4 C8 d
1 ~6 v5 F Y% r6 M8 V$ s, X) `What’s responsible for this decline in marriages? Western Standard columnist Dr. Brown has an explanation that can be found here.
* Z! @' {3 V; `4 d7 j" {/ {! b9 @& e" L( n+ j0 k
Posted by Matthew Johnston0 L2 a& G8 \ S0 ^! w
, H8 _! U Z8 O& u
Posted by westernstandard on July 15, 2009 | Permalink1 D9 Y) B, j0 r" j1 s) T* U
b! T: e0 J/ q$ ~( aComments+ z! H3 h& F/ X/ g
5 @. Z; S( Y; J& R
but the divorce rates are goibng up cause of the recession....
7 y+ I, T- W, n% m6 \: Y5 Y4 X0 u$ ^- y; P- b& V
Posted by: Patiently | 2009-07-15 9:13:51 AM
* f2 g9 H! }) ]2 y& u6 M/ B0 l) B7 h& G" D% k* C
I'm not surprised the marriage rate is down. The law profession and the feminists have done much to make the institution less attractive for males, particularly atheists. Maybe women who lean towards feminism should consider that the next time they're confronted with a male who won't commit.9 R( s8 |% N2 T! j; y! t# s
2 P; u& f O6 N4 J6 ]! t9 vPosted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-15 9:33:45 AM
- W9 F2 N* E3 N% W; S0 y! r6 i+ p3 G3 u4 \
"but the divorce rates are goibng up cause of the recession...."
- \/ `" S. C) K7 P1 v t; G
N6 D7 s: \% iPosted by: Patiently | 2009-07-15 9:13:51 AM1 D ?5 }0 K6 j- }# K- `7 h$ I
' |& c$ Y r) K6 o. F
Sad, isn't it? The one time it really pays to stick together, and people are splitting in record numbers.
9 R- m0 X. [5 N8 ]' U. e+ J$ ^1 v6 J. v! l; w" H. {- q
I know why this happens. Women get restless when their "provider" isn't living up to expectations. It's a biological thing, a way to protect the interests of the brood. Unfortunately, it usually ends up doing more harm than good.As I'm writing, there's an ad for "muslim matrimonials" on the side bar. Do they get double points for extra wives? The couple looks so happy. I guess she hasn't had her first beating yet.: g2 D% S; G+ b. q9 f& p7 _
# ]: S% y6 P; o: T, v APosted by: dp | 2009-07-15 10:23:47 AM; p2 k/ [/ N5 U1 R2 S0 _: S8 {
2 i: c9 j' e6 j% t
Statistics Canada released its report on marriage statistics for 2004 today.; r4 |! o) h$ f/ o! s" T4 Q) {
Posted by Matthew Johnston
7 j+ {2 `. ~( {) D2 s0 B' o: l0 c M& y( r" U
It's taken them 5 years to compile that info???& N9 t' ^: }1 v& X! W4 Y
! j4 v7 Q5 e: e x
What is interesting is that gay marriage was less than 1% of all marriages. Didn't they claim that they were being discriminated against because they couldn't get married? Gay marriage is then made legal and hardly any of them get "married".
; V/ z5 D1 b8 M9 X
( }. f r: ^% pPosted by: The Stig | 2009-07-15 11:27:03 AM
3 G- }4 V8 F- l' {( N7 k) q3 {* F" R1 b% h
I am only common law with the mother of my child. And neither of us have any intention of changing that.
; q" |6 u7 R3 o8 @% K- W
2 b! H3 c5 Y; B+ k! T9 ?In my case: I believe that the legal sanction of marriage is a state excess. And I like to practice what I preach.Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-15 12:42:01 PM) L8 Y4 c+ `+ r6 Z
# _# `+ W% E b% G/ r"It's taken them 5 years to compile that info???"
5 `, U/ o, @. ^/ T$ K/ a9 t h3 d. a* l/ r1 l' C; P0 F* h# P2 n
I thought that strange as well, Stig.
' M s3 r8 z9 e% ~. M* D+ Z+ f& i K$ U" n1 X+ j6 F
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-07-15 1:08:07 PM0 Z9 p/ F2 C. H' H
" i0 r! Y* e" r& g* d$ p
"It's taken them 5 years to compile that info???"
1 X# d) t! ~; {! _5 [# M8 F/ z1 ^8 q# o. I) c8 t/ f; _0 ~
It takes a long time to tally the data from any national census, Stig. The very first large-scale mechanical computers in the early 20th century were built for just that purpose. That's why you never see census data less than about four or five years old., J6 f, H! r( E, Z/ X; k3 G
& H- P% i" \: ~, Z$ F( r$ I, x
It is safe to say that had they been interested ONLY in data pertaining to marriage, and tossed the rest, we would have had the results much sooner.
1 R' ?& `$ }! F: x9 i' b% ?2 `) A, j. r
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-15 2:15:47 PM1 M2 W. K- A2 b, @
; _% l1 Q) m ?6 r
People are seeing that they are screwed tax wise as a married couple I think. Each partner responsible for the others taxes. Mind you this only applies to entrepeneurial types as wage earners won't be effected by it. But the more creative and productive people can see the downside of a divorce and even when there's no divorce, they still get screwed by Big Brother's tax department. Its symptomatic of the tacit, socialist war on free enterprise and religion.$ V( I0 N2 n% V2 g
0 {5 N7 w( ]& {: |* CPosted by: The original JC | 2009-07-15 4:19:36 PM7 ?+ ] |4 a" Y4 X, Y7 o! ^# {
( m2 q& E) n t' g
What if marriages keep declining...? ' _/ V6 s& Q/ C* h9 C. B7 k6 j
Does anyone will directly suffer from that?, G( L; J4 x" x/ E6 W& E: R0 w
Is "not getting married" hold people from getting involved in long term relationships or building families? Before answering that, one might take a long walk around his neighbourhood to realise nature always find its way.0 ]1 v C' i* \- D
8 Q" {" n5 u# {. g5 R
Social conservatives are pretty good to put the blame on gays, feminists and the left for the decreasing numbers of marriages, but they seem to forget the reasons why people do not get married anymore is precisely because the precedent system, where church and State were in the same bed, was a total failure and created very unhappy marriages.
! P8 K( ]0 U. rFeminism is a direct result from that era.
. W6 o3 z# r+ A, ZWould you prefer a country where people are forced into marriage?
6 c1 D2 N+ |/ W" c0 gDoes anyone here believe marriages will be ban one day or something?
+ @! y3 A7 p `& z0 A/ BThis is a non issue or at best, a church discussion.
: F0 p }$ A) C" E. ^6 a4 CPosted by: Marc | 2009-07-16 12:07:21 AM- P, @5 @* c8 O5 U/ e
( H0 V z9 @# t8 B, f
"Social conservatives are pretty good to put the blame on gays, feminists and the left for the decreasing numbers of marriages, but they seem to forget the reasons why people do not get married anymore is precisely because the precedent system, where church and State were in the same bed, was a total failure and created very unhappy marriages."
( I- h u1 o' M1 ]- @
: H; n* A8 t/ ^8 Y5 QThe Church did not and does not create marriages, Marc; it merely sanctifies them. Marriages were and are created by people. However, a new generation of (some) women has come to regard men as disposable meal tickets. Most divorces are filed over women; most are filed over money.6 O, ]2 A" [9 {/ i( o9 x2 M
5 s( x# a3 W! K! pIt may interest you to know that feminism as we know it is unique to North America. In other countries of the world, women are still making ingresses into the business and professional world, but watch with dismay the antics of their American sisters, whose conduct they consider bitter, boorish, and unfeminine. Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of this kind of feminist.: J& |" f# S( {! b, j8 Y
1 q7 C+ Q, c% ?. y
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-16 6:29:15 AM! M! Z1 s/ _ {- B
$ Z0 Q: ]0 n9 u D, s( X" hSorry, most divorces are filed BY women, and most over money.
% \% q# e( T; ]: F
8 I7 _7 p$ s! U, rPosted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-16 6:29:54 AM' L+ ~3 n" B1 W) s c
Q$ b4 {. q% Q9 g1 h, f& B9 j' Y
Shane Matthews,. g+ c6 c v: S- _1 L" ~, B" q
: O6 g+ q4 b* C. V. k
So women should act more "feminine"? Why? Because you said so?; G( t) ]. r/ o( N
% `. b3 ]+ @- V2 QPosted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-16 7:29:38 AM1 N6 C1 f9 G0 V6 m
" ]& ^' Z! N) w% e7 L4 f& f% L9 \2 @"So women should act more "feminine"? Why? Because you said so?"
1 n' T5 C! ^8 g- d6 P* p! A5 q
) \" I0 b, }: [' sBecause MEN say so. At least, they should if they ever want to be wanted or trusted again. And women in other countries, even other Western countries, seem to agree. North American women are in the midst of a deep-rooted identity crisis they would do well to overcome.; c/ i7 f# b+ i" |9 d V
. G) R* }% K. ^0 h& M: v) n) ?Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-16 7:45:45 AM
5 N2 W. v6 P' j& s
1 S, X6 }1 K- d# d3 X* Q"The Church did not and does not create marriages, Marc; it merely sanctifies them. Marriages were and are created by people."+ ]% A p* q* \" @* |! Z# k
& j; O% o5 y) v; ]3 e1 g e6 HDr. Matthews,
4 S0 Z b' \( v M H3 l5 }4 G0 xI never said marriages were created by the church; although the church still thinks it have the monopole of its definition. What I said was that under a very religious state and society we once were, the beliefs around marriage created very unhappy marriages. For example, marriage was the only option for young women wishing to leave the house they grew up in. It was also forced upon young couple who got pregnant. A divorce was a seen as a sin so a very unhappy woman was invited by all her entourage to shut up and stick with her premature ejaculator and wife beating husband.
, D" n$ s ~ ^
& x, e8 X: _8 H9 Z+ H. u% O8 hAnd I'm not even talking about atrocities like "Les enfants de Duplessis" in Québec where an "illegitimate" new born was stolen from the mother and given to the state, controlled at the time by religious authorities. They were considered as mentally ill orphans and sent to institutions where they were beaten and got their pipis’ touched.
/ `, K4 B7 v& ^, G; q4 m8 l4 m
' `) e4 O0 o. b0 b; C) K9 lAll that, in the name of the sanctity of marriage.- v. h2 j9 o# w8 P4 {) R; u( |
5 \7 x9 h4 C# l' ~
Anyway, even if I agree with you that feminism had created some vicious consequences, it’s important to remember where it comes from.& [$ _# `- `4 L l& g7 i. |
+ w) q* Y X0 t% I2 A*$ R& @; R, p. S6 K, h( A
+ w4 a4 l, y: P2 X5 u- ?1 C
This said, I didn’t come on this tread to say bad things about the church.* f! b6 D2 I0 a; Y
I posted here to simply put in light that decreases in numbers of marriages worry only social conservatives.
; q4 ]- k! [! H8 [% ~Posted by: Marc | 2009-07-16 10:08:25 AM3 t) {4 I! L0 M+ v
% ^! n% a# R E5 a1 g. F, K- \
Marc,
/ E0 _1 f8 W5 h& V Y5 n- A0 u
5 j- ~) o7 @0 J. p" cNever try to argue with shane, he know's everything about nothing.
9 y8 l( b+ z5 `- ~" j. Q! B, h! U9 ^5 f( a
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-07-16 10:49:34 AM- q3 v+ t( F+ J8 I
* N( X. w% n3 C) `! R& ?
Thank you Doug, but I already know Dr. Matthews.7 ?6 f& g# ~0 i" q& D# x/ _
You have to admit, however, that this full time blogger is the only one who can create such jewels.$ i+ K+ j5 l4 w1 C
" E& I2 u* @- _$ @4 _6 D+ Y8 xFor instance, here where he put the blame on feminists for the decreasing numbers of marriages while advocating they are the ones who profit the most from a divorce...2 `9 o9 d$ j$ d, ?9 l& {
0 m5 R4 N7 L" a) g s9 RIf divorce was such a lucrative activity planned by the feminists’ camp, wouldn’t they be known as aggressive pro-marriage activists?
- [. R& a8 ^0 \. U" L" P% uPosted by: Marc | 2009-07-16 11:33:02 AM" b% P# [ G" t( ]" l5 Y3 _
4 x7 t! K) {# |3 i$ L) F"If divorce was such a lucrative activity planned by the feminists’ camp, wouldn’t they be known as aggressive pro-marriage activists?"/ D L- v+ h q
, Q" i- \# O% P! |Feminists value their independence from men above all else, Marc. If ever they do slip and get hitched, and then get buyer's remorse, taking their ex to the cleaners is the next best thing. Besides, if a racket like that became TOO obvious, it wouldn't work.! d" d. B ]4 V. \7 T$ l2 k$ S
4 P: o, D& Q$ Q) n( T
I'm not saying women marry a man with the intention, from the outset, of divorcing him and collecting alimony. But there's no denying that feminist attitudes have thrown gasoline on the war between the sexes. Sympathetic courts that frequently favour wives over husbands only exacerbate the situation.$ y* a8 y% A* G! d5 k
! }* y. I& V. Y; L& S/ yPosted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-16 11:38:17 AM+ n5 O0 b, [6 C, _6 j2 W
' k, {0 d9 x% K" `1 p2 L"Never try to argue with shane, he know's everything about nothing."; [. K3 h% H3 o6 X
$ D9 {- Y& }6 x8 [2 m( V
No, Doug; you're not bitter or vindictive at all, are you? You've mutated into a loathsome troll, visiting only to indulge in a drive-by smear. The Red Star is a good place for you.* T% g0 ~7 |( q8 k0 q
$ u8 N; @' z& P, z! F- l, {
P.S. That one sentence contains no fewer than three errors. "Staff writer," huh? Did you have one of your underlings translate your semi-literate ramblings into something that looked like it wasn't written by a contemptuous 15-year-old?8 b1 A0 v% ]" A
1 T. S$ W- v6 S
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-16 11:41:39 AM
1 R2 O7 S" [1 p/ [5 q; l# R7 j `' i% Q* _) ^) D
"I never said marriages were created by the church; although the church still thinks it have the monopole of its definition."
* \( p( w. r! Z M% ^, H/ r( m, c6 W# t: F% ~. Z
I don't believe any other major faith recognizes gay "marriage" either, Marc, nor do most reputable dictionaries. The definition is in better hands with these institutions than with aging boomer activists left over from the Quiet Revolution who have somehow managed to ascend the bench.: x0 I8 g8 J( B( Q& N
7 ]3 `; s# I, R) g; S; D"What I said was that under a very religious state and society we once were, the beliefs around marriage created very unhappy marriages."
% { ^# S6 F7 H6 X- d! W& T9 h+ }3 E
How do you know how unhappy they were? There are unhappy marriages today, too, you know. The difference was that in those days, even when divorce was legal, couples often remained together for the sake of the children. Nowadays children are weapons to be used in the vicious wars between embittered exes.
* y, D; a9 w( M2 X/ p2 a8 ~8 m, C& m5 ~
# w) O4 l) d5 s2 e' T3 N2 h! X"For example, marriage was the only option for young women wishing to leave the house they grew up in."
& t: L4 h# j5 j6 C# K" G* t: T1 d# W; A8 t2 f- S" E
Not true. Women could become schoolteachers, seamstresses, live-in maids and housekeepers, nannies, and other occupations then thought "womanly." Spinsterism (which in those days set in around 21 or so) was frowned upon but not actively persecuted.
. ]/ A& g. x1 d7 q, h! d; P
' x2 t1 i7 S: A& E3 \"It was also forced upon young couple who got pregnant."7 X- ^" e# t9 o* M+ ?
+ o( Y3 A" z8 wNot true; there are numerous accounts of outraged fathers turning mother and baby out into the street to survive as best they could. And a shotgun marriage is preferable to dismembering an unborn child alive. Pregnancy in those days could not be ascertained with certainty until the fourth or fifth month, at which time there is no arguing that the fetus is just "a clump of cells."& r" \* X! K7 [
$ ]. D0 Y/ E3 v# R- ~"A divorce was a seen as a sin so a very unhappy woman was invited by all her entourage to shut up and stick with her premature ejaculator and wife beating husband."+ a% _6 }1 v6 Q
. y: P) Z. `) N, G9 @
Or a mild, meek man with his shrewish, domanatrix wife. Here you betray your own sexism, your belief that only men can be bad or abusive spouses. By the way, divorce was not seen as sinful by Protestant churches. Although there was a social stigma attached, it did not derive from theology. For that matter, divorce is not illegal in Catholicism either (although remarrying is).4 g2 s8 A- ~0 a8 d! t/ W
5 }" W# A: Q9 k$ n5 v
"And I'm not even talking about atrocities like "Les enfants de Duplessis" in Québec where an "illegitimate" new born was stolen from the mother and given to the state, controlled at the time by religious authorities."
" [* C j: y# X
2 Y. O% v, n- L1 `) d0 gYes, how very much better to give out free abortions, as many as the mother wants. Better to off them and flush the remnants down the toilet than risk hurting the mother's feelings. Québec now has the highest abortion rate in Canada, isn't that so?' N, s2 F- x3 F8 t* b: n
$ U3 t- b- u* |"Anyway, even if I agree with you that feminism had created some vicious consequences, it’s important to remember where it comes from."1 M- Z5 y! K% B4 J; r7 z
# N$ C7 ^, R4 Q- B3 ?' N6 ]1 |Yes. It comes from emotion. And emotion is not an acceptable foundation for public policy. Ever.7 `/ B+ r1 t$ j+ X
* ~! s, N0 V9 SPosted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-16 11:54:46 AM" p6 f+ O7 V7 F; \: A
, d' K0 Y3 D+ E+ f% F
Hahahaha...
5 w; X) b7 l: _# HYou're so not getting the result you're looking for by twisting Québec history and modern society, your religious way.' Q- {8 C# k. m7 X8 O! ]. ]2 M
9 A" E! a* G% }9 F"But there's no denying that feminist attitudes have thrown gasoline on the war between the sexes."6 Q0 g+ ^# j1 I) r" m
( {3 S' c5 M7 ^) ?
Dr. Matthews,& m* `$ j! x) L4 \' m% {' `
Women were not given basic rights for thousands of years. Yet, you keep trying to sell us they're the axis of all evil; just like a religious activist would do. I certainly don't believe some 40 years of "feminist attitudes" has inflamed a war between the sexes so therefore, I'm inviting you politely to find another friend to play along with.1 b8 P4 K: N3 \: ] Y% Q
5 V! X/ Q0 S! P; _
Say hi to you wife for me, or maybe should I have more chance if a pass directly to your milkman...
3 x" U! {+ i5 o$ OPosted by: Marc | 2009-07-16 12:18:31 PM
6 U9 w+ [9 X* H
6 k; q ] O6 Q, R% f, A# ?2 GNice to hear frome you Shane. How are the unicorns and dragons doing in your world? Where can I get a dragon, I always wanted one as a pet.% L0 s7 W1 j; h9 [% K
9 X: W- p; s2 g# S0 QPosted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-07-16 12:45:35 PM8 \- f0 F* S4 V4 m3 d9 x$ j$ V
9 p' V( B5 c) f O/ `% K _
"Nice to hear frome you Shane. How are the unicorns and dragons doing in your world? Where can I get a dragon, I always wanted one as a pet."0 [3 a/ V$ e6 s1 I( H1 o4 n4 J
1 ^3 Z% i5 J! Q& a4 V
Try yo momma's house.
7 Z$ ]( ~0 w# A( [! S F5 |( B" D# m; a$ v | h
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-16 4:57:44 PM4 R3 K7 t r0 U& @6 S; ~- D. y
0 V3 h e4 X6 G, L7 \( z"You're so not getting the result you're looking for by twisting Québec history and modern society, your religious way.") k6 k+ e/ r F
0 j+ n; J: u8 V8 R: H$ bNeither is Québec getting the result it's looking for, apparently; ever on the cusp of secession for what would likely be a very bleak future for a province that hasn't been in the black since Duplessis died. p# a! ]" g F B& X* ?
- H- X" D& y6 s) Y' X$ f' q"Women were not given basic rights for thousands of years."- V2 g% i1 L! l' m( D, a w- X; j1 s1 |
, Z/ S5 w0 s1 FNone of which the women of today have any claim on. You can't claim compensation for something that happened to your ancestors, certainly not in ancient times.6 a5 l+ I( A; O9 k, v4 c' Q0 Y
) r5 h8 R) h ]; _( U
"Yet, you keep trying to sell us they're the axis of all evil; just like a religious activist would do."
$ g& [ @! d/ f+ z3 c, P4 [1 l' e5 E& i: G i7 t
They're the author of their own misfortunes, their own bitterness, their own unhappiness; I have never met a radical feminist who wasn't the most miserable, wretched, lonely creature you can imagine. And that includes those in relationships with milquetoast trophy men.
- j8 g" j3 |, S! }5 Q. {; w+ ?3 D8 O
"I certainly don't believe some 40 years of "feminist attitudes" has inflamed a war between the sexes so therefore, I'm inviting you politely to find another friend to play along with."1 ]2 Y! }( w1 k5 e/ Y7 y( c
& m8 Q$ ` C, Z# ^1 VWhat you believe does not matter.
- A( c2 V8 J' a5 @; y, H# R
$ G$ r* G6 F% o* b! v' j) N% o"Say hi to you wife for me, or maybe should I have more chance if a pass directly to your milkman..."
! {% P( `) C# W
( W! o: P0 @$ ]9 YWhat's Québec's divorce rate again?+ Z8 N" `( Q/ m7 I
; `. ^* S" \4 k2 b4 z/ X2 QPosted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-16 5:02:45 PM
. v9 c/ F* `5 Y3 W* p4 T9 K8 f( i/ I5 \# Y; J
Marriage is in decline. Abortion is unrestricted. Step by step our guns are taken away. Our criminal justice system has the toughness of a tooth brush. Gays are everywhere while Christians are being pressured to leave the public square. Our youth are rapidly abandoning christianity. Government sponsored human rights commissions shove political correctness in our face. We say that we support our troops but all we talk about is turning tail(which indirectly aids and encourages the Taliban scum).What are our choices? One, socialists who will tax and regulate the hell out of us while telling Christians to drop dead. Two, libertarians who will cut taxes and derregulate but still tell Christians to drop dead(be good little boys and never express your opinions publicly) We have now truly become worse the even Sweden. At least Sweden has some restrictions on abortion. Heck, gun ownership rates are higher there and from what I've heard less strict than Canada. In Sweden, the main center-right party(Moderate Party) is essentially libertarian. The main left party is essentially socialist(like the Liberals).Congratulations, Canada has now gone off the deep end! Sweden anybody!
0 l( K3 ~% x4 p. I0 h/ @* s' v2 _; k5 _6 p
Posted by: Jeff | 2009-07-17 8:32:33 PM
v4 M/ H- L# c) B1 N
$ s7 H; x: B5 b7 ]& M& z' l9 m1 X6 n! \Jeff you're making some valid observations but your conclusions are wrong. Libertarians are NOT telling Christians to drop dead. We're saying you have a right to express (and be) yourselves, but not a right to force your thinking on anyone. That goes for all factions of human life. We preach tolerance because we can't demand rights that we don't concede to all.
+ B& H0 {/ @0 u( D4 Z; \- b2 rWe still say you have not only the right to property but the right to defend it also.$ W, K( e# N8 [+ ~ a& m
# a& V; C- o2 a0 bPosted by: The original JC | 2009-07-18 8:35:45 AM
, V9 ^! q/ E/ v; D1 Q% R$ t6 v- E$ g d, _; `0 M) m3 i% ]
Funny, I married my wife before I had kids. It seemed right and I didn't want anyone calling my kids illegitimate or bastards. I guess that isn't any concern of some people. It will be interesting to see in 15 years how the children of these "common law" situations will feel about their family setup. What will the parents' reaction be if the children have issues with this arrangement.
( o8 Y2 c1 A9 F/ h# r3 q, z/ F* {8 y3 ^* g
Posted by: Art | 2009-07-18 2:46:16 PM* Q7 j- y- E3 g
: p9 T9 p4 }, m& ~0 f; WDivorce laws have been changed in many many ways during the 20th century, where what we call "marriage" no longer is. It is no surprise then that men are refusing to sign such a fraudalent contract?. e- t6 K {3 G$ s5 m
- j$ C y: k+ |4 hWould you sign a contract where the other party can break it, yet you end up having to pay the damages for the other persons betrayal. For example no-fault-alimony decrees that even if your spouse was having adultery, you can still be decreed to pay her alimony. She can run a brothel from the family bedroom, and still get alimony plus half of everything. That my friends is a Fraudalent Contract. |
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2011-10-19 10:09
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
显身卡
发表于 2011-10-19 17:30
呵呵， 对男人了解的挺透哇！
还有呢，偶觉得爱一个人就要相信他，相信他才能得到他呢！ 这也是对自己的自信。那么纠结，累不累啊？
呵呵，偶喜欢简单！
楼主