ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th March 2020, 10:12 PM   #81
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,277
I'm getting flashbacks to the "civil union" nonsense.

Marriage isn't just a property arrangement. It is a key feature of how we establish kinship, which underlies countless aspects of civil society. This weird, hyper-individualist, libertarian view of the world has no resemblance of reality. I'm not saying the 1950's nuclear family model is essential, but that family is.

As for committed monogamy, it is quite popular cross-culturally, across time, and within sexual minorities as well. It's not some grand revelation that there are people who don't always like it. But many people, a lot of the time, do like it, for plenty of valid reasons.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

Last edited by Tsukasa Buddha; 25th March 2020 at 10:17 PM.
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 05:31 AM   #82
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,886
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
I'm getting flashbacks to the "civil union" nonsense.
Nonsense. The whole "Civil Union" crap was the exact same thing "Marriage is a special kind of relationship that deserves special recognition and other relationships shouldn't get it."

The only thing that got argued in the Civil Union debate was whether it could be two innies or two outies or could only be an innie and an outie. All the rest of the baggage was still there.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 06:58 AM   #83
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,982
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
I'm getting flashbacks to the "civil union" nonsense.

Marriage isn't just a property arrangement. It is a key feature of how we establish kinship, which underlies countless aspects of civil society. This weird, hyper-individualist, libertarian view of the world has no resemblance of reality. I'm not saying the 1950's nuclear family model is essential, but that family is.

As for committed monogamy, it is quite popular cross-culturally, across time, and within sexual minorities as well. It's not some grand revelation that there are people who don't always like it. But many people, a lot of the time, do like it, for plenty of valid reasons.
The point of the civil union nonsense was to establish a lesser, second-class-citizen solution for gay couples that wanted the legal and social benefits of a government marriage.

What we're talking about here is a single equitable solution for everyone, regardless of sexual preference, number of partners, etc. Just like today, and unlike the civil union nonsense, there would still be only one first-class tier of marriage.

I'm trying to translate your post to a statement of your policy preference. I'm probably getting it wrong, though. Can you help with this:

"Because legal marriage establishes kinship, which in turn underpins civil society; and because committed monogamy is so prevalent, legal marriage should probably be reserved for couples (of any sexual orientation). It should not be extended to larger groups of arbitrary size and composition. Nor should it be stripped of the profound social gravitas currently associated with what would otherwise be just another kind of business contract."

Is that anywhere close to what you think should be the policy?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 07:22 AM   #84
rockysmith76
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 1,023
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The point of the civil union nonsense was to establish a lesser, second-class-citizen solution for gay couples that wanted the legal and social benefits of a government marriage.

What we're talking about here is a single equitable solution for everyone, regardless of sexual preference, number of partners, etc. Just like today, and unlike the civil union nonsense, there would still be only one first-class tier of marriage.

I'm trying to translate your post to a statement of your policy preference. I'm probably getting it wrong, though. Can you help with this:

"Because legal marriage establishes kinship, which in turn underpins civil society; and because committed monogamy is so prevalent, legal marriage should probably be reserved for couples (of any sexual orientation). It should not be extended to larger groups of arbitrary size and composition. Nor should it be stripped of the profound social gravitas currently associated with what would otherwise be just another kind of business contract."

Is that anywhere close to what you think should be the policy?
debatable IF:

They get all the same benefits and you realize Marriage is essentially more than the Government sanctioning your relationship in return for the fee underlying a marriage license.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 07:29 AM   #85
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,982
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
debatable IF:

They get all the same benefits and you realize Marriage is essentially more than the Government sanctioning your relationship in return for the fee underlying a marriage license.
I don't understand what this means. I think marriage is a lot more than just recognition for a fee. The fee is just to cover the administrative costs of the paperwork. The overall effort and cost to the government of sanctioning the relationship seems larger than that, to me. Just giving the couple the option of filing taxes jointly if it's more advantageous seems like it would cost the government more money than it could possibly recover with a license fee.

Also, marriage licenses are typically issued by state governments, which are the entities that collect the licensing fees. But filing jointly applies also to federal taxes. So unless there's some conspiracy between the states and the feds, your theory of legal recognition in exchange for licensing fees is a non-starter.

Last edited by theprestige; 26th March 2020 at 08:21 AM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 07:32 AM   #86
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,886
Me and my wife's marriage fee was 30 bucks. We paid more for our dog's rabies tags. I don't think even the most "let's nickel and dime them" government is seeing marriage as revenue source.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 08:22 AM   #87
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,922
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Well, "normal" is pretty subjective, don't you think? So is "crisis". Some people's normal might be someone else's crisis. I remember a bit in Jerry Springer's book about his show where he points out that one episode had transvestite gay swingers with dwarfism...but that wasn't even what the episode was about. They were on there because of a paternity question unrelated to being transvestite gay swinging dwarfs. Back to the topic: I don't see why anyone would bothering with boring old marriage when there are transvestite gay swinging dwarfs out there. The world is a sexual buffet of enormous variety! and so many people are filling up on plain bread and butter! That's a tragedy, that is.
You are getting way off topic here. I was looking forward to an interesting discussion on the quantative aspects of chowing down on families.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 08:23 AM   #88
rockysmith76
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 1,023
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Me and my wife's marriage fee was 30 bucks. We paid more for our dog's rabies tags. I don't think even the most "let's nickel and dime them" government is seeing marriage as revenue source.
and yet you could be "together" and paid nothing in fees.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 08:24 AM   #89
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,982
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Me and my wife's marriage fee was 30 bucks. We paid more for our dog's rabies tags. I don't think even the most "let's nickel and dime them" government is seeing marriage as revenue source.
I think it's more of a social service, like not taxing churches. "This institution is beneficial to our society and its citizens, so we'll support it as best we can. Ideally, we'd issue licenses fre of charge to anyone wanting to participate, but practically speaking we need to charge a minimal fee to cover (some of) the administrative costs."
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 08:29 AM   #90
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,982
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
and yet you could be "together" and paid nothing in fees.
The advantages of avoiding a $30 filing fee, in order to not have legal kinship, cannot be understated.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 09:07 AM   #91
Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it!
 
Mike!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not!
Posts: 34,337
Has anyone offered up the idea that the real problem is that it's far too easy to get divorced, were it a lot harder and even more expense than it already is, that it may cause people to really think long and hard before even considering entering into such an extraordinarily binding contract?
__________________
"Never judge a man until youíve walked a mile in his shoes...
Because then it won't really matter, youíll be a mile away and have his shoes."
Mike! is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 09:12 AM   #92
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,886
Originally Posted by Mike! View Post
Has anyone offered up the idea that the real problem is that it's far too easy to get divorced, were it a lot harder and even more expense than it already is, that it may cause people to really think long and hard before even considering entering into such an extraordinarily binding contract?
There is absolutely no reason to make getting out of bad relationships more difficult. And yes "But waddaboudda children!?" is included in that "no reason."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 09:14 AM   #93
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,982
Originally Posted by Mike! View Post
Has anyone offered up the idea that the real problem is that it's far too easy to get divorced, were it a lot harder and even more expense than it already is, that it may cause people to really think long and hard before even considering entering into such an extraordinarily binding contract?
The conventional wisdom seems to be that back when divorce was a lot more difficult, people still got married a lot, but just suffered more when it went bad and they couldn't get out.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 09:20 AM   #94
carlitos
"mŠs divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 21,521
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Dang. This is fun and all, but I was kinda looking forward to a social policy conversation with CP that didn't lead with a partisan political slapfight/conspiracy theory. ChristianProgressive, will you be rejoining this thread soon?
Nope. Once he finishes, he gets dressed and leaves. No cuddle time, no breakfast, nothing. It's a one shot affair.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 10:01 AM   #95
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,982
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Nope. Once he finishes, he gets dressed and leaves. No cuddle time, no breakfast, nothing. It's a one shot affair.
He should at least buy us dinner first, then.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 03:30 PM   #96
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,277
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The point of the civil union nonsense was to establish a lesser, second-class-citizen solution for gay couples that wanted the legal and social benefits of a government marriage.

What we're talking about here is a single equitable solution for everyone, regardless of sexual preference, number of partners, etc. Just like today, and unlike the civil union nonsense, there would still be only one first-class tier of marriage.
I wasn't clear, what I meant was discussion about civil unions, especially on this and other forums, where often the proposed solution was everyone gets civil unions, or government "getting out of the marriage business" all together, or other quixotic ideas.

Quote:
I'm trying to translate your post to a statement of your policy preference. I'm probably getting it wrong, though. Can you help with this:

"Because legal marriage establishes kinship, which in turn underpins civil society; and because committed monogamy is so prevalent, legal marriage should probably be reserved for couples (of any sexual orientation). It should not be extended to larger groups of arbitrary size and composition. Nor should it be stripped of the profound social gravitas currently associated with what would otherwise be just another kind of business contract."

Is that anywhere close to what you think should be the policy?
The monogamy part was more of a separate response to other postings in the thread lamenting monogamy. Sorry if that was confusing.

Let me try to rephrase. Marriage isn't a business contract for two people managing property or their own relationship terms. This view ignores kinship. When gay people can't marry, they can define those other things on their own, but the push for gay marriage isn't just for some vague notion of "equality". This can be seen in adult adoption, which is used as a pseudo-marriage alternative when gay marriage isn't available. Is adult adoption about property division or monogamy? No, it is about establishing kinship. Family, and who is or is not your next-of-kin, is fundamental in civil society, and the government and society recognize and account for it in a variety of ways.

Again, I'm not saying the nuclear family was handed down by Moses and is sacrosanct. There have been plenty of different marriage models and different kinship models. Historically, in terms of marriage, I think moving away from arranged marriages and polygamy, and allowing divorce, was beneficial. In terms of kinship, on paper I think the clan model makes a lot of sense. There are dozens of different models, but my point is that we shouldn't ignore kinship and how marriage actually functions in society.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

Last edited by Tsukasa Buddha; 26th March 2020 at 03:31 PM.
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2020, 07:03 PM   #97
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,886
Okay so let's take this down to brass tacks.

What, from a legal perspective, should differentiate Ted and Carol the husband and wife from Ted and Carol the girlfriend/boyfriend?

A few caveats.

- It can't be circular. It can't reduce down to "Well Ted and Carol getting married prove they are more serious about the relationships and therefore their relationship is more serious."

- It has to be... I mean "enforceable" isn't the exact word I'm looking for but it's close. Since in no sane modern society do we actually make married couple stay married if they decide they don't want to be married anymore or have children you can't use monogamy, "forever," or children as proof of marriage's special status or need for it to have a special status.

So you're "the government." Within those two confines what are you allowing/disallowing married Ted and Carol to do that dating Ted and Carol can do or vice versa?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2020, 03:20 PM   #98
autumn1971
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,127
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay so let's take this down to brass tacks.

What, from a legal perspective, should differentiate Ted and Carol the husband and wife from Ted and Carol the girlfriend/boyfriend?

A few caveats.

- It can't be circular. It can't reduce down to "Well Ted and Carol getting married prove they are more serious about the relationships and therefore their relationship is more serious."

- It has to be... I mean "enforceable" isn't the exact word I'm looking for but it's close. Since in no sane modern society do we actually make married couple stay married if they decide they don't want to be married anymore or have children you can't use monogamy, "forever," or children as proof of marriage's special status or need for it to have a special status.

So you're "the government." Within those two confines what are you allowing/disallowing married Ted and Carol to do that dating Ted and Carol can do or vice versa?

I would say pretty much what the government does now. It recognizes an economic intermingling and other legal benefits if the couple choose to take advantage of them.

It is, as you mentioned, merely easy legal boilerplate taken care of in one go.

If you want to have a ceremony you can. If your families get along, fine. But the government doesnít really care, nor should it.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2020, 01:52 PM   #99
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,886
Okay.

So what should Carol and Ted the best friends or business partner or roommates or whatever have (under the same caveats) have/don't have that Carol and Ted the husband and wife don't have?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 03:58 AM   #100
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 16,084
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay.

So what should Carol and Ted the best friends or business partner or roommates or whatever have (under the same caveats) have/don't have that Carol and Ted the husband and wife don't have?

Sex?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 05:43 AM   #101
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,886
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Sex?
From a legal, government recognized perspective?

That's my point.

"What's the difference (that the government should recognize) between marriage and other relationships?
"X"
"So other relationships don't/can't do X or the government should stop other relationships from doing X?"
"Well no..."

Wash, rinse, repeat.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 08:02 AM   #102
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 16,084
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
From a legal, government recognized perspective?

Nah, just from a tired old joke perspective, the kind that implies married people never have sex (at least, not with their own spouses), while everyone else is getting it on with their friends, business partners, and roommates.

Jokes aside, I think the government should have some formal recognition, not necessarily of marriage relationships specifically, but of households, whose internal transactions (e.g. the pooling of income) are not taxed. Such recognition could be extended to other forms of household, such as roommates who want to enter into a comparable arrangement. However, this cannot be generalized to every kind of relationship, or else you'd have businesses declaring themselves "one big happy family" so the employees wouldn't have to pay income taxes.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2020, 12:38 PM   #103
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,260
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I would argue that it is too easy to have children! I see families at the malls and in other businesses and I observe parents who are just ignoring their kids or verbally abusing them at some level. Iíve been very lucky in my marriage and with my kids. My wife and I discussed the decision to have kids at length and itís worked out wonderfully. Yet there are so many parents who appear to not have thought it out and now just resent their children. Awful.

I donít know how this can be changed given we believe having kids is an inalienable, ďgod givenĒ right. But I think potential parents should at least be required to take a test...
While I kind of agree with your point, I don't see how you can enforce it. Having kids is not just legally easy; it's also biologically easy. Now, if there existed some sort of non-invasive, easily reversible sterilization, I suppose you could mandate it for everybody, and only reverse it if the would-be parents prove they are fit, but that's still a level of government intrusion that I would have serious reservations endorsing. As far as the way things actually work in reality, all you could do is impose some kind of penalty for having unsanctioned children, and I suspect that would create far more problems than it would solve.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2020, 12:53 PM   #104
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,116
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
While I kind of agree with your point, I don't see how you can enforce it. Having kids is not just legally easy; it's also biologically easy. Now, if there existed some sort of non-invasive, easily reversible sterilization, I suppose you could mandate it for everybody, and only reverse it if the would-be parents prove they are fit, but that's still a level of government intrusion that I would have serious reservations endorsing. As far as the way things actually work in reality, all you could do is impose some kind of penalty for having unsanctioned children, and I suspect that would create far more problems than it would solve.
Said a man who has never been in a labor/delivery suite.

But if you want to say getting pregnant is easy, then yes, I can agree. And once on that track it is no small matter to change course, whether the course is easy or not.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.