Speaking of a non-religious (i.e. practical as opposed to doctrinal) perspective, I'm a huge supporter of the institutions of marriage and the family. I believe that they are extremely valuable arrangements that yield tremendous social benefits...when done correctly.
I just read a Reader's Digest advice column where a woman wrote in to complain that her previously divorced husband spent his weekends and free time with his 2 year old son from the previous marriage and that she was feeling neglected. I thought that the answer to this was simple: "Don't marry someone with a 2 year old if you don't want a 2 year old to be the center of that person's life." That's not what the columinist responded with, however. Instead, she said that parents who have divorced often overcompensate by spedning their time with their children and that the new wife should talk with her husband about spending time with her. And I'm thinking, every person I know who has a two year old or around that spends nearly all their time with their child. What are they overcompensating for?
For me, the situation that situation may be a marriage, but it's a bad marriage, and I don't think that they approach the concept of a family.
I have faith that marriage and the family are full of obvious benefits. Members of good families and marriages get a lot out of them, as does society as a whole. Being a part of a good marriage or a good family is something that I think people should rationally prefer. I am constantly suprised when people say things like "If we allow people to choose a different path, then no one will get married or form a family." These people apparantly don't have the faith I do in these things being good for you.
So this is where the breakdown occurs for me. When people talk about "defending" marriage or the family, I very rarely agree with them. For me, that we allow people to get divorced isn't the problem with families and restricting this ability isn't the answer. It's that people want to get divorced in the first place. It's not that the woman in the example above can neglect the child, with the solution of I guess forcing her to spend time with it. It's that she doesn't want to spend time with the child and faults her husband for giving the child the attention that any parent should.
If people really want to get divorced, but can't, that's not a triumph for marriage. I think this is more damaging to society than letting them divorce, especially if they haven't had kids yet. Letting them divorce doesn't, in my opinion, damage the institution of marriage either. The damage had already been done. The divorce is largely a recognition of this.
Defending marriage or the family doesn't really work for me. I don't think that they really can be defended, especially by the imposition of external restrictions. Rather, I think they can be supported.
Rational, mature people should choose to be in a good marriage and (if they think it is poosible) choose to have a good family. They don't need to be forced, and if they have to be forced, then it is not going to be a good marriage or family. For me, the fact that, after divorce became much easier in the U.S., many many more people started getting divorces doesn't mean that allowing divorce broke marriage, but rather that these people were in sick marriages already.
Our job, as I see it, as supporters of marriage and the family is to encourage the growth of people who can form the good ones and to ease as many of the troubles from these states as we can. Supporting marriage kicks in in the begginning of the things, not at the end, and it involves focusing on the people who are in or going to be entering into these relationships, not on excluding other people from these relationships.
You can do these things and I guess you could call it defending marriage, but whatever it is you're defending doesn't look at all like what I'm talking about when I'm saying we should be supporting marraige. In my opinion, one of the worst things that has happened to the public conception of marriage is having it's wellfare being linked to excluding gays. This has first of all given bigots (and, as I've said many times, you can be against gay marriage without being a bigot, but this doens't mean that a huge number of poeple who are against it aren't speaking largely from bigotry) a central role in the social conceptions of marriage and the family, and these are exactly the people who are too immature to form or even understand good ones. Second, and probably more importantly, it's taken attention away from the actual problems with marriage and the family.
For me, big items on the list of people concerned about marriage should be fostering societal health and educational reform and one of the big issues I believe in for supporting the family is some sort of system allowing one parent to stay home with the children. These are things we should be talking about, instead revising our history so that we think that the early parts of the 20th century is something we should want to go back to or focusing on bashing homosexuals and somehow thinking that this will magically fix our broken marriages.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's that people want to get divorced in the first place.
Yup. This is the sickness and divorce is only the symptom. I think part of what is fueling this sickness is the powerful messages of the media about romance. Falling in love is so glorified as to be the greatest thing in the world. I think plenty of wives look at their husbands and think, "Why aren't *you* so passionate about me?" So when someone comes along and sweeps her off her feet, that must be her soulmate, her true love, and she abandons her family. Same with the man. He is taught to seek exciting and stimulating sex from boyhood on. If his wife just ain't doin' it for him, he needs to find it elsewhere. And when pictures get boring, flesh and blood comes in to take it's place.
But how do you battle these things? Some "new thinkers" of the last generation suggested the solution was to abolish all lines of sexual morality--anything goes. That will fix the problem!
I disagree. I think we need to teach commitment, sacrifice for the greater good, responsibility, making something beautiful out of the dying embers. And religion, BTW, does an excellent job of encouraging these things in our society. I would like to see the secular world do the same.
As for the family being under "attack", I see more and more families destroyed by rampant hedonism and selfishness, and more and more of the rising generation rejecting the institution that caused them so much pain. Their numbers percentage-wise may be comparatively small, but I believe the percentage is growing.
Less people chosing to get married and make those life-long commitments in the first place. Less people chosing to have children and experience the life-changing effects of parenthood. Sometimes I don't worry about the world overpopulating, because if the trend continues, people are going to stop chosing to reproduce enough to keep the current level of population. I realize that is a pretty big "if" since we are still growing by leaps and bounds. But there are countries in Europe and Asia that are actually *shrinking* in their populations. War is something that could kill off large amounts of the population also, if it comes to that.
The fact is, even if we are over-populated, there still needs to be another generation. If starting from this moment humanity stopped reproducing, we as a race would die out within a century or so.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think that Marriage and Families in the current sense do a decent job at effectively raising humans. Not a great job, but an okay one. I think that there are many other methods that are arguably as effective, and that in the future our current definition of Family will change.
Take nuclear families, for example. I'm sure there will be people who will argue on both sides of nuclear versus extended family arrangements. Nuclear families are more common now than they were in other points in history, or other places.
Communal living was more popular a few decades ago, but there is still a growing trend of intentional communities. I'm sure they'd argue that their Family structure is quite beneficial to their children.
A marriage is not the be-all and end-all of a Happy, Well-Adjusted Family. We've all seen bad marriages, bad families. I'm not saying that the marriage was the problem, but that marriage was not the solution. It's not a panacea, and I think that the sooner people can consider that possibility, the sooner we can work together for common goals of Happiness and Peace.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree [edit: with Mr S). Ironically, I think that supporting homosexual's desires to marry would strengthen marriage in the long run. Contrary to a gay marriage somehow cheapening or threatening a straight marriage, I think letting committed gay couples form a legally recognized union would do wonders for breathing new relevance into the idea of forming a lasting bond that is greater than the individuals themselves. Whether or not children are involved, society is strengthened when people form bonds of mutual love and support. Pointing fingers at gays and telling us we're just "playing house" (as one respected author once wrote), does more to damage the institution itself than any committed gay couple ever could.
posted
I have seen references before to "extended" verses "nuclear" families. I get the feeling I am missing something. Are these at two opposite ends of some spectrum I don't know about? I think extended family is great! I think when grandparents and uncles and aunts and cousins can be part of a kids life, that is a beautiful thing--something to be encouraged. But I do think that the nuclear family should be at the center of that.
There are marriages that cannot be reconciled, and I don't know very much about that. There are times when it is better for a married couple to split up than to be together. But I think that is vastly in the minority. Especially if everyone believes in the importance of keeping the family together and *sacrificing* in order to do so. Divorce damages children. It damages or even destroys their faith in the permanence of marriage. Abusive parents damage children more, though, and abuse is a valid reason for the split-up of a family.
What can be done to stop abuse? I have no idea. It does seem to be a chain that is tough to break. Something that should be educated about, taught about, fought against. Maybe it can't be eradicated. But some say that the abuse that happens in families is a reason to fight against the nuclear family! Now that is throwing out the baby with the bathwater! We need nuclear families that are healthy and abuse free. As a society we should be doing everything, *everything*, possible to help that happen.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think we need to teach commitment, sacrifice for the greater good, responsibility, making something beautiful out of the dying embers. And religion, BTW, does an excellent job of encouraging these things in our society.
I disagree with both of these statements. You can't teach commitment, sacrifice, or responsibility. That's the exact problem that I'm talking about. They don't come from outside. They exist as potentials inside a person. The best we can do is set up environemnts that encourage the growth of these things.
I don't think you'd be able to support the second statement by any realistic analysis of the situation. On average, religious people in America test as lower on many scales of maturity than non-religious people. The best of religious Americans are right up there with the best of non-religious Americans, but the average religious American is not a particulary good person.
Oh, and gay marriage is very much an ancilliary part of my point.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, those are valid points, I think. All I can say is that I do not feel threatened by gay marriage in the way that many are.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any of those scales of maturity measure "commitment, sacrifice for the greater good, responsibility, making something beautiful out of the dying embers"?
posted
bev, You're focusing on the end (or not end) of the marriage. Again, this is what I tihnk is the big problem. To "fix" marriage, we shouldn't be talking about "well, only a minority of marriages should break up". It's not a question of whether this is right or wrong, it's a matter of looking in the wrong place for the solution. The problem with marriage will not be solved if only a minority of marriages end in divorce. This would be an indication of improving things earlier on, not a fix in and of itself.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky, I am aware of the statistics. But I am a believer that the statistics often do not tell the real story.
Would it be possible to do a study of people to find out who was actually implimenting the good teachings of their religion? That would be very difficult if not impossible. How often are the religious couples splitting up *both* living their religion?
I believe you *can* teach commitment, sacrifice, and responsibility. But some will not be taught.
Religion does not hold a corner on truth. Any human can use correct principles to their betterment. I am fully aware that atheists have some of the strongest families out there. That is because they are implimenting true principles in their families to keep them together.
Edit: My measure for saying religions are effective is my own life and my own marriage. That is the most real example to me, that if people will just follow the teachings of their religion, both of them, their marriages can be preserved.
quote: bev, You're focusing on the end (or not end) of the marriage. Again, this is what I tihnk is the big problem. To "fix" marriage, we shouldn't be talking about "well, only a minority of marriages should break up". It's not a question of whether this is right or wrong, it's a matter of looking in the wrong place for the solution. The problem with marriage will not be solved if only a minority of marriages end in divorce. This would be an indication of improving things earlier on, not a fix in and of itself.
I think we both agree what the real disease is, and I definitely suggest starting with the disease. But the disease is almost impossible to really attack. I believe in reviving any family bonds that can possibly be revived.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You can't teach commitment, sacrifice, or responsibility.
I'm not really sure what the purpose of the parent is, except as a source of food. I hold that "setting up an environment" for those things to grow is a part of teaching it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a hint. Want to protect the family? Shoot every TV Comic father who over emphasises the fear, responsibility, and work being a father intails. Shoot every older couple on TV that have a disfunctional, non-loving relationship. Shoot every woman on TV who complains about her love life/body image/body fat after giving birth.
And give praises and raises to every father who loves thier child on TV, every mother who is proud of her son and daughter, every child who doesn't see their parents as "The enemy".
Marriages are not defeated by sexuality of the parent or religion or race. They are destroyed when we forget the basics--Love, Respect, Tenderness.
Marriage is a union of two individuals, not the enslavement of one or the abuse of the other.
Get rid of the lonely single hip young and bitter writers in hollywood.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wholeheartedly agree that the way to ensure strong marriages and families is to help children believe in strong marriages and families--through teaching and example. Parents who neglect to teach their children correct values and principles or who don't expect their children to live up to those principles are in my mind weakening the next generation of their family line.
Restricting divorce isn't necessarily the solution, although I don't think it should be too easy to get one. Divorce should be just difficult enough that the decision to get one has to be well thought out and other options for salvaging the marriage already considered.
I also agree that strong families are the foundation of a healthy society and that family life, both in definition and in practice, should be vigorously defended. I believe that the structure of the family matters very much--that if possible, there should be a father and a mother--husband and wife--in the home, both actively participating in raising their children. I believe the influence of both the father and the mother is very important, that this is how the children will best learn how to build strong marriages and families, and that this is how we will all find the greatest joys in life.
While there has been much in all the years past that has been ugly in marriage, families and society, I think the strong and lasting family structure--man, woman, and children--has been the glue that has held strong, successful societies and nations together throughout human history. Defending this, IMO, is hardly an attempt to bash homosexuals or restrict freedom, and I'm sorry that it is always interpreted this way.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, I'm on board about the possible positive influences of religion. The point I'm trying to make is that there are possible negative influences as well or, to put it another way, the problems of society are because people aren't members of a religion.
Of course, this is treating religion as a social and belief system, in and of itself. To clarify, when people self-identify as religious and are indentified by others as religious, I consider them religious. I'm of the opinion that nearly all organized sects of Christianity have introduced major perversions into the original message, but, from my perspective, that doesn't make them any less christian.
So yes, I do believe that people who are serious about religion are generally much better than the average. However, the fact that the average religious person isn't serious about what I consider the basis of the religion, and instead is much more into the system of the religion as it is, doesn't make them non-religious.
PSI, You think maybe you've misread my position?
Teaching, in the way I'm using it, is a direct attempt to impart these things from the outside. It's saying "Be Responsible" and then rewarding or punishing based on this. This is exactly the attitude that considers allowing divorce as the reason why marriages fail.
Setting up the environemnt is trusting that these things will naturally develop. In this way, responsibility is encouraged indirectly, by setting up situations where it will grow.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I agree that restricting divorce won't stop people from having the mentality that makes them want to get one.
But I do believe that it would make people try harder in the marriages they have, rather than face the bitterness of decades with someone you can't stand.
Plus, it would make the next generation think longer and harder about what they are getting into.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
My opinion is the person who "sets up the environment" is a teacher.
Saying that teaching is nothing but rewards and punishment is leaving out about 90 percent of what good teachers actually do.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People need to think before they get married. They need to realize that relationships are not always fun and games, that sometimes there's a ton of stress and pain involved in them. People expect these neat faery tale endings with hugs and romance and none of the bad stuff. They never think about the wandering eye, the distractions and outside forces...
Furthermore, I wish there were more extended and strong families. Economically, a lot of people cannot sustain nuclear families. Companies should get involved. They should make sure that families have as much benefits and support as possible... Especially when they need time off because a child is sick. It would ease the burden a bit. Whole communities should help any couple, and I do mean any that seeks to be monogamous, especially when they are raising kids.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I agree [edit: with Mr S). Ironically, I think that supporting homosexual's desires to marry would strengthen marriage in the long run. Contrary to a gay marriage somehow cheapening or threatening a straight marriage, I think letting committed gay couples form a legally recognized union would do wonders for breathing new relevance into the idea of forming a lasting bond that is greater than the individuals themselves. Whether or not children are involved, society is strengthened when people form bonds of mutual love and support. Pointing fingers at gays and telling us we're just "playing house" (as one respected author once wrote), does more to damage the institution itself than any committed gay couple ever could.
Rock on KarlEd!!! Can't agree more!
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a problem with saying you "can't teach sacrifice or commitment, etc." To say these things can't be taught seems so completely false to me that I'm surprised a more detailed rebuttal is needed than "Of course they can." Good people do it all the time. We teach through example, and as PSI pointed out, setting up an environment for those things to grow is also part of teaching it. It seems clear to me that we can also actively teach those things. We can teach and discuss what sacrifice or responsibility or commitment are and why they are important. We can explore methods of reconciling incompatible commitments. We can explore in a classroom setting what we as citizens or even as government leaders can do to foster these things in ourselves and others. What are all these things if not teaching?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, I agree with you on what good teachers do. I disagree on what I think is you're unspoken assumption that there are all that many good teachers out there. See the world I would have used is "exceptional" teachers.
----
I feel like I should restate my point. You can't make someone have a good marriage or a good family. This is eomething that they have to choose to do, every moment they're in that situation. Nothing external is going to make them makes those choices. They need to grow to the point where they are going to make them.
It's not just a matter of effort, although effort is part of this choice. All the work in the world isn't going to make an immature person be able to sustain a healthy family.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it's not that those things cannot be taught, but that you cannot force people to learn them against their will.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I do think that the job of the parent is to teach and encourage the growth of maturity in a child so that they will be prepared to have a healthy marriage. That's why I get so irked when I see parents give in to their kids so easily at the grocery store. They seem to have the idea that "kids will be kids" which I AGREE with, but I believe that it's the job of the parent to encourage the growth out of that attitude.
"Kids will be kids" is a good excuse for that time your kid threw his dinner on the floor to see what sound it would make.
"Kids will be kids" is NOT a good excuse for repeatedly throwing his dinner on the floor even though you have asked him not to and explained why he shouldn't. And a parent that would continue to refill the plate and refuse to let the child be hungry that night (under the rule of "kids will be kids") so that he can learn to understand what it's like to be hungry, so that he can appreciate the work that went into the purchase and preparation, that his actions have consequences, and that food is not something to be wasted when there are people who don't have any.
/rant (It was way too long, wasn't directed at anyone, and probably needed it's own post instead of being part of an edit. Tra, la-la.)
posted
You're right, Squicky. I don't know what we can do about it but just keep trying our very best. I do think that the media does a lot of damage though, and too few try to stop that damage.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Companies exist for one reason - to make a profit.
In this era of "maximum profit, minimum cost", companies lack the enlightened self-interest that might otherwise promote interest in supporting and encouraging an employee.
However, at the same time, the company should not be expected to facilitate an employee's personal life and/or lifestyle. You show up, do your job and get paid - the rest is up to you.
posted
See, I always wondered why a company would find it easier and cheaper to continue to hire and train new employees who never get good enough at their jobs to facilitate profit, rather than encourage the employees they have to stay on and get good at their jobs.
Even in fast food.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Granted that you can't force people to learn things like commitment, it's always seemed to me that one useful way to learn them is to follow through--to learn how to be committed to a marriage, stay in one. That marriage is something you learn by doing, and if you back out the moment it gets hard you'll never have a good marriage.
But then, I've never been married, so what do I know?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The media is simply another factor of the environment.
Trying to protect your kids from something is not nearly as effective as teaching them about it.
It's like blaming tv when a kid tries to fly by jumping off a roof wearing a cape. Yes, he saw it on tv. Did his parents ever take him aside and explain that Superman is just an imaginary character?
posted
"I would like to see the secular world do the same."
Gah...I need to learn how to do the quote thing! Bev, could you explain your statement a bit more for me? I'm taking it to be the old, "Oh that secular world is just completely without morals." However, I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.
posted
Yes, but, they would be more profitable in the larger sense if they provided things like day care and as much help to parents as possible. I say that because I am an idealistic believer in community. Things used to be easier for young middle class (primarily white) married couples. The husband could work and actually make enough money to support his wife and kids. Now, it's not so easy. Now people have to take 2 part-time jobs each just to pay the bills and they can't spend enough time with their kids. In an ideal society neighbourhoods would be close knit. Families would be as well. People would be able to fall back on family for support. If they needed someone to care for their kids while they are at work, they could rely on trust worthy neighbours to help them. Parents could even work at home when they needed to to be there for their children more... But it is not like that... and that's one reason why a lot of families are suffering. It's not due to things like impending gay marriage, it's internal problems like abuse, lack of money, lack of trust... ect.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and PSI...I can tell you that experienced workers expect raises. At least, that's the way it is at Cracker Barrel. The trouble is that management, at least where I work, doesn't seem to see that experienced workers will (or should) cost them less in the long run; they're focused on short term profit, even when that means things like not buying important supplies.
They're unlikely to fire me and certain other key employees because they don't expect to find anyone new, but the rest of us are not so lucky.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on the job PSI and the nature of the turn-over.
If it's a low-skill job, any mistakes will have a minimal impact on the company and it will probably be cheaper than paying a skilled employee more money with benefits.
Highly skilled jobs suffer less turn-over, allowing, of course, for the available labor pool.
But enlightened self-interest is not what was going on when Enron exploded.
It's also the guiding principle behind shifting jobs overseas - the company is fixated on the individual profit and not the long term consequences of soaring unemployment at home.
The company is pretty sure it can find someone to buy their products.
posted
Advice for robots, you had me until this last part:
quote: Defending this, IMO, is hardly an attempt to bash homosexuals or restrict freedom, and I'm sorry that it is always interpreted this way.
Part of the reason it is "always interpreted this way" is because the right wing has chosen this position as their rally cry against homosexual unions. The term "defense of marriage" didn't exist in public forums except in terms of defending it against percieved homosexual threats. Because no real threat against marriage from homosexuals can actually be indentified and named, it becomes clear to the gay community that "defending this" is code for "restrict gay access to greater participation and acceptance in society". So, though I agree that it is sad that defense of such an important institution is so often interpreted as bashing gays, it is the right-wing bastardization of the phrase rather than any over-sensitivity on the part of gays that has brought this about.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: But then, I've never been married, so what do I know?
I had a conversation like this with my mom yesterday. When I explained to her that I hoped to never lie to my husband, she said, "You always talk like you know everything, but there are some things you can't know until you get there."
While that is true in many cases, I also believe that having a positive attitude and a plan for success is not idealism, but rather not following through is a failure.
When I was a teen I used to say I didn't want to have sex until I was married.
Now, it would be easy for me to say, "Well, what did I know? I had never been in such a strong relationship before, and I had never had those feelings." That would be true, but what's even more true is that I was RIGHT when I planned to not have sex (according to my beliefs) and that having sex didn't mean I was idealistic before, it just meant that I messed up royally and was more wrong then.
*sigh* I'm just ranting because I get sick of people nodding knowingly and saying things like, "I hope you can keep that positive attitude." It's really nauseating because it's barely veiled sarcasm and shows more about the fact that the person is jaded than it shows about my immaturity.
/rant (what is this, my fifth of the day?)
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, That's sort of it, but it's more like people don't really need to learn them at all, but that they do need to be given an environment to grow in and part of that environment can involve teaching. When the basic idea is that I the teacher needs to put these things into you the student instead of working together and letting them grow and develop, then this teaching is going to fail.
There was a thread where I talked about my experiences volunteering with Boy Scouts that I'm looking for right now that explains this much better, but the search doesn't seem to be turning it up.
The basic point was that, there were leaders who were concerned with the boys doing everything right and there were the leaders who were there to prevent any major screwups, but let the boys suffer from the consequences of the minor ones and also take credit for there successes, and the boys who were allowed to screw up became better and more mature over the long run.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Space Opera, I don't think the overall message of the secular world is, "Sacrifice what you think you want so much right now when it will be better for your spouse, your children, your community, your workplace, etc." But religion does teach that. Very strongly. The secular world seems to say more, "Don't encumber yourselves! Do what is best for you." This leads to hedonism and the eventual downfall of society, IMO.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
AND NOW, for the most helpful post on this thread!
Pay attention!
HOW TO DO THAT QUOTE THING:
Between two normal brackets -- [ ] -- type the word QUOTE. After the close bracket, paste the text you want to quote. Then, between two normal brackets --[ ] -- type the word /QUOTE.
Thus, if I wanted to quote the above paragraph, I'd type:
"[Q U O T E]" Between two normal brackets -- [ ] -- type the word QUOTE. After the close bracket, paste the text you want to quote. Then, between two normal brackets --[ ] -- type the word /QUOTE. "[/ Q U O T E]"
Of course, omit the " and the spaces between the letters of the word quote. And you don't have to capitalize anything.
[ September 07, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Never lie to your husband - well, there are lies and then there are lies.
Lying about dinner is not the same as lying about the stripper last night.
On the other hand, I have found it very true that it's easy to say you will never do something when you have never been under the gun. I am constantly reminded of the irony in my own life because of that.
posted
bev, I think you may be taking a selective view of the secular world. I'm very non-religious in my social outlook, but I think every what you said "sacrifice for your..." smacks of selfishness.
A thing I keep coming back to is that sacrifice and commitment and responsibility are beneficial things that people should rationally choose to do. They aren't things that I think should (or can) be sustained by people being being forced to do them.
With the education thing, the "teaching" that I'm decrying is the kind that says "You should sacrifice because it will be better for your family." or often just "Sacrifice is good." without any reasons and leaves it at that. What I'm propsing is education that ends up with the person realizing on their own "I should sacrifice because it's better in the long run."
edit: To restate, I don't think that the idea of sacraficing and doing what's best for you in the long run are opposed. In fact, I tihnk that they go hand in hand. The big problem we run into is short term thinking and the big problem with this is quite simply immaturity. And I think that we have this immaturity in large part because we don't acknowledge that maturity is so very important.
posted
Ok, Bev. That makes more sense to me now - thank you. Is there middleground between the secular and religious worlds? I'm just wondering out loud here. Are there only these two worlds? I don't think I agree with either one as you've presented them. I have major problems with organized religion, so I refuse to exist in that world. Some icky experiences taught me that unfortunately not all religions or churches practice what you said about sacrifice. Can we pick and choose from the secular world? I look around the little town I live in and don't see much evidence of people doing only what is best for them and for them only. Again, I'm just wondering; this is pretty interesting stuff.
But, by that, you assume I've never been under the gun.
Also, I would be very disappointed if my husband told me he loved what I made for dinner, when in reality, it was horrible. Why would I want to continue serving him something he doesn't like? Why would I want to continue cooking badly when I really need more experience?
I'm not opposed to learning more and improving myself.
If it's an area that I really don't want to know the answer to, I won't ask.
You will never hear me ask my husband, "Do I look fat in this" because I would never put him in the position to answer that. There's no right way to answer that.
posted
I agree that if somebody is forced to sacrifice something, it is not a sacrifice, the person "sacrificing" doesn't get any benefit to his soul for it.
It is because of this belief of mine that I am against forced charity (like welfare) for the most part.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
