Are conservatives really for family values?

[Maynard Keenan]

"why do marxists always make everything about money? They have a real fixation problem. sheesh"

I don't know. I've never actually talked to a self-professed marxist and I don't see any in here.

 

[Spawn]

How so?? You certainly assume much without offering any kind of evidence or reasoning. On the other hand, JFK's policies would be anathema to today's Democrats. (Tax cuts, military actions, without UN approval no less, inspiring people to give to their country rather than see what it will give them.)

ANATHEMA!! giving to ones country? That's democratic heresy!!

 

[Doctrine1st]

15 pages of ACTUAL DATA: http://www.epionline.org/studies/macpherson_06-2004.pdf

Sorry

Although I haven't looked at it yet, I can't download pdf files at work, I will look at it when I get home.

I thank you, and I suggest you read it first, and if there is no data that shows increasing the minimum wage cause unemployment, prepared to be talked about.

 

[praying]

Well this has been an interesting thread.

I just would like to put to bed who was the more racist party. Both. That's correct, both. Do you think it mattered to someone being denied his or her civil rights or worse, whether the perpetrator was a Democrat or a Republican? Nope sure did not.

What they saw first and foremost that mattered was a white face and it didn't matter what their political affiliation was because racism was rampant amongst the people of both parties. I am not talking about politicians but everyday rank and file folks (the delegates at the conventions if you will), those were the faces that people of color saw when being denied their civil rights.

This argument; over which party was more racist, is purely superfluous and as I see it just a way of assuaging one's conscience. Not because people feel directly responsible for anything but it a way of distancing yourself and your party from racism.

 

[Vylo]

Marriage has always been the root of civil order - it was so in rome - and has been viewed as religious institution since the beginning of the church.[/qoute]

Then why wasn't it always a sacrament? Why did Calvin say that while it was good, "so also are agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, hair-cutting legitimate ordinances of God, but they are not sacraments"

And what about before Rome? You realize rome is very recent historically right? Civilization (agriculture) has existed for nearly 11,000 years.

 

[enlightenment]

This view is hypocritical. You already, to some extenct, have bought into moral relativism and progressivism. You condone women voting and getting an education and working, and yet you support traditional family values.

You assume MUCH.

I will take this as meaning that you do not support women voting and getting an education.

Letting women get educated and participate in government, when their traditional place was in the home, was the first step in leaving behind traditional family values.

huh? Don't link education and suffrage. Women have always had the right to an education in the traditional family.

I will respond to this one first. I really can't believe this.

1837 - Oberlin College, in Ohio, becomes the first college to admit female students. In addition to studying, the women have to do laundry and cook meals for the male students.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0907019.html

You know very well how wrong you are. Women were not educated much beyond high school, if that. After all, what use would it be to educate a women? She needs to be performing domestic duties. How would an education help her with that? If we had kept a traditional family structure all the way up till now, I would not be attending College right now. Maybe you think that it's the right thing to give women less of an education than men because they don't need one anyway, right?

"Oh, but the ladies' colleges..."

Those didn't teach women anything other than domestic duties, manners, etc. Just frills and nonsense...because that's how women were supposed to be...

Suffrage on the other hand - Chesterton had the right of.

There are few things more amusing than reading Chesterton's attacks on the Women's Suffrage movements. Only someone as charitable as Chesterton and as brilliant as Chesterton could have devised his labyrinthine arguments against feminine suffrage. His argument is this: voting (like men) is coercive and collective women are by nature opposed to coercion, and are solitary homebodies rather than members of the mob.
http://www.ashton-dennis.org/year01/post1201a.html

I see. You don't support women suffrage. What century is this? Hmmm...

It was NOT about women being independent from men - it was about women sullying themselves. What you fail to realize is that prior to the Victorian age, women were seen as lower and baser than men - a woman was a temptress and a seductress. But the Victorian’s changed that. They elevated women to a revered status. They was women as the paragons of virtue and right - above the squabble and dirtiness of politics.

NOW - having answered your statements - I reject your premise.

All that you have said is sexist nonsense, based on a warped and erroneous view of history concerning women.

 

[Spawn]

Marriage has always been the root of civil order - it was so in rome - and has been viewed as religious institution since the beginning of the church.[/qoute]

Then why wasn't it always a sacrament? Why did Calvin say that while it was good, "so also are agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, hair-cutting legitimate ordinances of God, but they are not sacraments"

Marriage has always been a sacrament of the church. YES calvin denied it sacramental status - but the 5 ancient rites of the church have always recognized marriage as a sacrament, as do the Anglican and Lutheran churches. Calvin does not even speak for a large percentage of the current church let alone the historic church. So - you're point is easily refuted by history.

And what about before Rome? You realize rome is very recent historically right? Civilization (agriculture) has existed for nearly 11,000 years.

can you point to an example in western civilization where marriage was not a part of the civil order? I point to rome since roman law is one of the cornerstones of western civilization. If you can point to another example in western civ - please post it.

 

[Vylo]

can you point to an example in western civilization where marriage was not a part of the civil order?

Marriage does not equal the traditional family. Many of the ways you define traditional families seems erronous.

 

[enlightenment]

[/color]

Marriage does not equal the traditional family. Many of the ways you define traditional families seems erronous.

I totally disagree with what you have to say here.

If I thought this way, I wouldn't be earning a science degree in college; I'd be married already to a man whom I would be subservient to, and I would believe that all the forces around me that would be confining me to a sphere defined as a woman's place, are actually liberating; that the Victorian attitude of sexism and female inferiority are actually empowering; that having a male lead and take authority are actually better for me and for him; that women are incapable of self-governance because God made them that way; etc. The list goes on and on.