|
| well shit... Its been awaile since I've wrote in this... well I just got back from wrestling... and then I found out my older sister is probly the biggest bitch in the world | | |
| This is why I don't belive in gay marriage...this doesn't mean I hate gay people.
One of the downsides to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would be the weakening of the meaning of marriage, which would cause more divorces. Human nature being what it is, if the meaning of marriage is weakened, it will be psychologically easier for even more people to divorce. Look at what happened when "no-fault" divorce was legalized. The divorce rate skyrocketed. If the nature of marriage is further undermined in the minds of couples then when things get rocky, more couples will be tempted not to work through their problems and get happy again but rather to divorce and find someone else.
That is a bad idea, because most marriage therapists agree that divorce generally "doesn't work." Divorce doesn't solve the problems that caused the first marriage to break up. Divorced people bring the same problems to their new marriages that broke up their old ones. That's why second and later marriages are statistically far more likely to end in divorce than first marriages are. Also, a large majority of couples who contemplate divorce but stay together describe themselves as "happily married" five years later. So staying together "works" better than divorce.
Feelings of love are only part of what holds a couple together. When things get tough, as they do from time to time in every marriage, external factors help hold the spouses together-external factors such as concern about their kids or about the attitudes of society, including their friends, relatives, co-workers, or church. The exploding divorce rate we have seen since "no-fault" destroyed much of the stigma of divorce shows how important external factors are in keeping couples together.
| | |
| ok ok... I think I made some people a tad bit disgruntled... I'm not trying to say that Clinton was a horrible president... because I personaly belive that if you can become president your gonna do something good... exept maybe Jimmy Carter(you gotta agree with that Nick)... but I just think Clinton is getting more credit than he deserves... pretty much all Clinton did was stay out of the economy... and he let run its own course, and due to the boom in technology thats all he had to do... for that Clinton should be commended... but to say he brought on the boom by what he did is absurd... he didn't do anything... which is what he should of done...I'm not saying Clinton was a bad president... again I dont think there ever has been one... exept maybe the peanut farmer...but I don't think he was the greatest either... I will give one example for you to dwell on... while North Korea first started developing Nuclear weapons Clinton avoided the issue by just throwing some money at them and hoping they wouldn't do it... but look what happend... they developed the nukes anyways... thats just one flaw Clinton had like all other presidents have had.
Now I know what some of you are thinkig..."what about Gdub"... yes I will admit he has had his blunders... such as the "No Child Left Behind Act" ... which I think sucks... but theres enough people beating up on Bush in my own opinion... so I will look at some good things he has done... lets face it some people think Iraq is a disaster... but lets look at the facts... women can vote... theres developing a new army that is trained by the most advanced forces in the world... theres democracy in the Middle East... and most importantly an evil dictator has been disthrowned...and rumor has it American troops are gonna start pulling out in the next couple of monthes... so you guys bash Bush all you want...I'll save my Bush bashing for after he's out of the white house and we truly see how are country looks.
OH.... and the "Patriot Act"... ok.. yes it might take away some of our rights... but has there been a terrerist attack since 9/11? I really don't have anything to hide so as long as it's keeping me safe I'm happy... but thats just my way of thinking... so I'm am open for debate(Nick) haha...... don't worry... I still wuv you
| | |
| It disapoints me when people give all the credit to Bill Clinton when it comes to the economic boom of the 80's and 90's, giving no credit at all to the people who really brought along the boom
Many people think there was so much prosperity in the 90's because Clinton was president. I beg to differ. the boom officially started in March 1991, 20 months before Clinton was elected. While George Bush was still being castigated for economic ineptitude. Although many economists date the boom's origins much earlier, in late 1982, near the end of Ronald Reagan's second year in office. They say the 1990-91 recession that contributed to Bush's downfall was only a blip in a single 18-year expansion. Since late 1982, says Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, "the U.S. economy has been in recession for just six out of more than 200 months, or 3 percent of the time."
People say that Clinton's policies were why the economy did so well. So let us look at exactly what he did.
He supported Alan Greenspan (who was appointed by Regan) as chairman of the Federal Reserve. When it comes to his policy, some people might call him a conservative.In fact, by reducing inflation (a "quasi tax cut"), keeping the dollar strong, endorsing free trade agreements initiated by his Republican predecessors and signing the Republican Congress's capital gains tax cut, Mr. Clinton was effectively practicing the very Reaganomics that he had scorned.
You can also throw in a little luck.
In the latter part of the 1990s, Mr. Clinton was blessed with low commodity prices and the anti-inflationary effects of the Asian crisis. The Republican-led Congress kept him in line on the deficit and other economic issues. Add to that the huge restructuring of American business that began, well before Mr. Clinton, in the 1980s, dazzling breakthroughs in information technology and the take-off of the Internet in the mid-1990s, and it begins to look as if almost any president could have propelled the boom forward simply by not interfering too much. (Reginald Dale, Internatial Tribune)
. | | |
| Continuing on with my last entry I will add some more to why Jesus wasn't married.
This reason I am going to give is pretty simple. Jesus was just to damn busy to have a wife. I've never devoted my whole life to missionary work, and I've never saved the world from sin and distruction but I could imagine it would be pretty time consuming.
Also back to Jews getting married. Traditions encouraging a dedicated single life existed in Judaism. Members of the ascetic Jewish sect of the Essenes were known for their emphasis on celibacy (Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.5.21; Jewish War 2.8.2.121-122; Philo, Hypothetica 11.14-18). At Qumran, most appear to have been celibate, although a Dead Sea Scroll about the community suggests some possibility (1QSa 1:4-10) of marriage, woman, and children in the messianic times. For those Essenes at Qumran, the point of remaining single was also DEDICATION TO GOD. Which is why I belive Jesus wasn't married
The Enlightener | | |
|
Carlos from SBS
