evidence for conservative Christian influence on US government

Most states, including Missouri, allow divorce for any reason or no reason, so that's hardly a credible argument. Missouri allows divorce if you leave the toilet seat up too many times. Are we to therefore conclude that marriage is about toilet seats? Hell, let's have all kinds of marriage. I'd prefer to see the civil benefits abstracted from marriage and avaliable to any number of paired adults, of any relation. Marriage can be just straight people, or straight and gay pairs, or whatever. Whoever a church is willing to marry can be married. The government can civil unionize anyone who wants it. No harm to the child? Nope, no conditions.

The way to get me to grant you this benefit of the doubt, is not to initiate and continually claim the benefit cannot be granted to me. Actually I did understand what he said and was agreeing in part. Once a person accepts practicing tolerance of other beliefs, then evil fades as a reason to not tolerate another individual. But I do disagree that that results in any of the "sky is falling" predictions he made. That's also not quite true. Conspiracy to harm others can also be a crime. I do wholeheartedly agree people should not be rounded up based on beliefs... even those some group deems evil.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

They can have children in the same way as infertile couples. Why? Definition changes have not killed off other words or the ideas behind them. There are already nations which have it and are not dying off. I happen to live in one. Can you explain how exactly western civilization would be affected by about 10% of its population getting married in a slightly different fashion?By the way originally (if you are talking "ancient") marriage was allowed to be polygamous, including Jews and Xians. This was changed. Why did that not harm Judaism and Xianity... or did it?As far as climates of moral degeneration goes, please explain to me how King David fits into a climate of Moral values. Or better yet, how about St Augustine? He was not only quite lecherous in his youth, but he supported prostitution as necessary for the health of society. Or better still, name me an evangelist who has lived a worthy life that I can follow.You need to get a grip on yourself. The sky will not fall, some people will just be a bit happier (until they find out why heteros get divorces).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhhhh... they WERE enlightenment educated men who purposely designed a secular gov't. That is established fact. If you have read direct sources, might I ask what they were that you do not understand the above was true? This is not true. They wanted to prevent the encroachment and domination of secular business by religious interests. They could have been Xian, Jewish, Islamic, or Hindu etc etc. This is what happened in the recent past (to them) and so they wanted to avoid in the future. If you have read actual documents, how is this hard for you to understand? Not to get into ad nauseum but each statement appears to be raising that same issue. Please do. At least we'll know who the traitors are. My suggestion however is not that you secede, just immigrate to somewhere you'll feel more at home like Afghanistan or the new Iraq... maybe Saudi Arabia? It'll cause a lot less problems and you'll enjoy the benefits quicker.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Should I use Achan as an example? Killing, I believe, is wrong, but there are some times when people geet so corrupt that they can't return to the point of grace, and this is when the death penalty has had to be used. And for "Youth and Asia"'s sake, let's remember Terri Schaivo's whoring family in our prayers.

Now, why do you put an X instead of Christ? Can't bear his name?

'Christ' isn't a name. It wasn't 'Jesus' either.

You will now detail how an employer refusing to hire an individual will prevent that person from working... much less eat, have shelter, and live.Your claim only works as a slippery slope. Ahem, that is why in the post you are replying to I stated that there HAD been reasons. It wasn't so much that they couldn't get employment anywhere... people certainly would hire blacks... but that they were restricted to low jobs or no jobs. They were restricted from starting their own businesses in many real ways, which further kept minorities bottled up. That is not the case anymore. Yes I have. Whether you disagree with my answer is not equivalent to me not answering the question.Here is a thought experiment for you to work on. You start a business and someone you hire is cutting into your business performance. Do you have a right to fire the person? What if someone is effecting your performance because of who they are or what they do? Don't you have that right? What if they effect your intended business, by altering its atmosphere negatively in some way because of who they are?We are against discriminating against the handicapped, but we get that no TV news station will be hiring horribly disfigured individuals nor those with speech or other communication impediments. It won't sell and it would create a negative environment in which to work.Small businesses may have exacting (lets say bigoted) clients or similar restricted venues where a person's "status" might be detrimental. Doesn't a business owner have a right to take that into consideration?If you were right that not being hired at that specific job at that specific company necessarily means out of work and starving, I'll agree there is a reason to force employers to take employees against their wil. Other than that, there is no logical reason.Do I think its good business practice to discriminate? No. One loses potential talent. But that is different than necessitating a person either accept others or not do business at all. Actually I meant POINT, but I'm disappointed you are going to play this game. You really don't remember my point about educational programs being seen as telling kids to "accept" other beliefs? I find that hard to believe.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This has been discussed many times before. X is a symbol created and accepted by Christians (learn your own history). I use it as shorthand so I don't have to keep writing out "Christian" every time. One may note that I have not refered to THE Christ (its not his name) as X.I also often use "evo" for evolutionary theorist. Does that make me anti evolution?With the number of typos I make already. why pick on me for shortening some words?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I wasn't delivering an argument with the portion you quoted, I was making a statement. I will note that you ignored my argument. Referring to modern laws does not in any way shape or form discuss what they were about originally across cultures.That you continue to dodge addressing facts in order to restate your original premise means we are done here. People can read both of our positions and figure out which one is more accurate.As far as inability to have sex and/or children effecting marriage, if you do not know that that was common then that is your own problem. No fault divorce (any reason) is relatively new, and some states only within the last ten years. My guess is even MO did not have no fault (or any fault) divorce extending to far back into "history".I already agreed several times that marriage has changed with time. That does not mean we have to play ignorant on where it originally came from or how it was commonly treated. Just pairs? See what I'm talking about?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I haven't seen any evidence that the divorce laws of any state granted impotence or infertility as grounds for divorce, short of a fraud situation where that pre-existing condition was not disclosed. That's usually what people say when they have absolutely no evidence for a position. "It's common knowledge - what's wrong with you?" Look, I'm no marriage expert, and I'm amenable to correction on this topic. But I'm not about to be bullied into accepting your position by your repeated attempts to call me stupid, and quite frankly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I don't think I'm the only person here to be surprised and stunned to see you sink to this level. You misunderstood. The civil arrangement exists between any pair of adults. Any one adult may belong to any number of pairs.Sorry I wasn't clear.

Because "chi" (the greek letter "X") is an abbreviation for "Christ" developed by Christians in the 1500's. In greek the first letter of "Christ" is X.

It's also what people say when it is in fact common knowledge. I can't believe you haven't heard the term "consumation of marriage vows", and that failing to do so was grounds for divorce, as well as the inability of a marriage to produce children.If you want evidence for this, go look for it. At this point you haven't been producing evidence either, and if I doubt your word I'll go look it up myself.I mean its not like this issue makes or breaks the argument we are having. Fair enough. I apologize for anything I said implying that your are stupid.However I do believe a tactic is being used, or requested, and that is "playing dumb" on the issue of the origins of marriage. I have already posted links backing my position on this at EvC I believe twice. I could have sworn you were in those threads, but maybe you just never read my posts.In addition, more than just you have tried to counter fundamentalist's arguments regarding the nature of marriage using the "playing dumb" approach. Whether it has changed is irrelevant to the question of its origins and common meaning regarding sex of its participants.There simply is no question where it originated and what it was tied to. The fact that gays specifically never availed themselves to marriage with each other in open homosexual cultures and actually did get married to women so as to have children as identified heirs, sort of seals what marriage was about.This would be very easy for you to disprove and help build your own case at the same time. I encourage you to look as I would love to point to a culture that did have it in the past. Having done a lot of research I am telling you, it is unlikely you will find anything.I might also note that the concept of "bastard" or "illegitimate" children supports the marriage is about children claim. Well actually that doesn't exist in this nation, outside of Utah, but there are are concepts of adults having relations beyond multiple pairs. Maybe you are trying to suggest that one person can only be with one other person at a time and so polygamy will only be one pair at a time? That isn't necessarily, or doesn't necessarily have to be, the case.I am sure you will acknowledge that no state is going to be allowing children to be adopted by polygamists. As it is they generally do not allow it for strippers and porn workers, even if they have an otherwise traditional household.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Failure to consummate is grounds for annullment (maybe for divorce? Seems redundant). That may be the source of your confusion. But that's the failure to engage sexually, not to have children. Only as a result of a condition hitherto concealed is it grounds for annullment; divorce in most states needs no grounds whatsoever. So again, I question this assertion that infertility is grounds for divorce. I did. I looked up divorce and annullment statutes for my state. I didn't find anything like what you're referring to. I'm not playing dumb. (I may actually be dumb.) I literally have no idea what you're talking about - I've never heard that failure to have children was grounds for either annullment or divorce, at any time, and that certainly doesn't currently appear to be the case in my state.So what the hell do you want from me? If this is so god-damned well-known, how come nobody seems to know it but you? I'm not familiar with the posts to which you refer, I'm sorry. It's possible that I've simply forgotten. Or, it's about property rights, specifically inheritance of property (look at it again - inheiritance), which was my original point. ?I'm not sure I understand this comment. You asked me how I would do it, not how it is, so I presumed we were speaking hypothetically. Of course this doesn't exist in this nation. Not even in Utah, as far as I know.Or are you saying that multiple open partners doesn't happen in the US outside of Utah? I'm pretty sure that's not the case; I used to know one polyandrous triple living in Minneapolis. No, I still don't think you're getting it. The state creates civil unions between two adults at a time. One adult may have civil unions with any number of other adults at any time. Each civil union governs affairs between only two adults.If Alice, Bob, and Charlie go in to register their polyandrous marriage, they need three civil unions - Alice and Bob, Bob and Charlie, Alice and Charlie. One marriage. Three civil unions. Make sense? Unfortunately probably true. If these people are allowed to raise children, they should be allowed to adopt them, too. Our culture fetishizes violence and abhors sex, and one more example of the fact is that soldiers - trained, paid killers - are allowed to adopt all the children they please but someone who makes a living making other people feel good, or presenting re-enactments of something everybody does, may not. I say if your job is legal then adopt away.

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

Failure to consummate is grounds for annullment (maybe for divorce? Seems redundant).

---

The big difference between annulment and divorce is that annulment means the marriage never existed. For example, if the marriage was void to begin with (bigamy), lacked consent (drunk at the time), or fraud, then the marriage is dissolved and treated as if it never existed. Thus, no claim of alimony, claim on property, etc. can be made because the marriage never existed.

quote:

---

I've never heard that failure to have children was grounds for either annullment or divorce, at any time, and that certainly doesn't currently appear to be the case in my state.

---

It would depend upon the context. If, say, the man had said he wanted to have children but knew that he couldn't because he had had a vasectomy which he didn't tell her about, then she could file for annulment based upon fraud, even though they had had sex.But, assuming there is no active fraud, failure to have children is not sufficient to file for an annulment these days.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.