|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
I now pronounce you, Man and Property...
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Linkey:
http://166.70.44.66/2004/Jul/07072004/utah/181590.asp
I don't know what to laugh at first ... this guy's statements or the fact that he actually got elected to the Senate...
Posted by: 9:35
Utah is a scary place.
Posted by: laborat
Any Man, Christian or otherwise who thinks that women should take a subordinate role in marriage is a fool. So much for the separation of Church and State. It should be unconstitutional for a Senator to use the Bible on the Senate Floor. Who are we kidding here? We are becoming a Christian Theocracy. Alas the darker side of the Age of Aquarias is coming, that man would again secularize around gods and wars would erupt over whose god could pee the farthest. (you might notice that even this elimintates women from prominence for obvious reasons.) The worst thing the devil did was to introduce the concept of a god to man.
Posted by: 9:35
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by laborat
We are becoming a Christian Theocracy.
|
...a Christian Theocracy of PATRIOTISM!
The only "glitch" I see here is that the God who often serves as Bush's Playground Earth consultant may be a side effect of his massive drinking/cocaine years.
I don't see what your problem is here, communist.
Posted by: laborat
Personally niner, I think its time for the real Christians to stand up against the Stepford-Christians that you and your buddy bush seem to belong to. But wait, those real christians have been excommunicated, threatened with excommunication, kicked out, cast aside, reviled as witches, burned at the stake (figuratively), and called communists. I stand by my remarks except to expand them in this way. I think this country is turning into a Stepford-Christian Theocracy. That the topic would be the subjugation of wives is ironic. It has always amused me that so many men are so insecure with their own abilities to negotiate on a personal level, that they cannot stand a full partnership with their wives. The marriages that endure are the ones where both are committed to the marriage as equals.
Posted by: SKYHN
The question is: Was Carol Anne at his side?
Posted by: TheeMon
you know what i would like to see? a whole thread of nothing but 9 and labo argueing...
funny stuff i tell you
Posted by: Bix VT
WTF.
It really pisses me off when people say that women are inferior to men. How can you expect a woman to stay by your side if treat her like a second-class citizen? I doubt there are many men that would enjoy doing nothing all day but cooking, cleaning and laundry. Oh, and then when your wife got home, you would so graciously be allowed to eat her out before she went to bed. And that's it. The story of your life.
Kind of unfair if you ask me.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bix VT
WTF.
It really pisses me off when people say that women are inferior to men. How can you expect a woman to stay by your side if treat her like a second-class citizen? I doubt there are many men that would enjoy doing nothing all day but cooking, cleaning and laundry. Oh, and then when your wife got home, you would so graciously be allowed to eat her out before she went to bed. And that's it. The story of your life.
Kind of unfair if you ask me.
|
99% of married men up until 1960 didn't see a problem with it
Once again. this is Utah
Posted by: laborat
I seriously think that figure would be much lower, niner. It wasn't the 60s that was to blame. It was a combination of elements that came together to right wrongs. Liberals, artists, people of color, finally said I shall be free. And believe me, it was a time of oppression. A lot of folks put their lives on the line for the right to be free.
It was women who finally figured out that their rights were as important to them as to men; who with the church's blessing (an institution I might add that is run by men) kept them in their place while they begrudgingly began to loosen the laws and attitudes toward them and people of color.
Equality was an issue in the 60s for sure. Equality for all. Women started identifying with the struggles of the people of color for equal rights and why not? -- both suffered through literal slavery without compensation, were descriminated against, beaten or worse if they didn't comform to what men's laws were in place.
That condition still happens even today, and you can't sit there and tell me its okay for men to beat men or women of any color. If you do, you might find yourself labeled as a bigot. Attitudes change with the climate of the times. I fear that with the present adminstration, and the church's influence we might see the pendulum swing back toward oppression of personal freedom for all. I find it terrifying that God is being used to justify un-Godlike actions, and that no one seems to bring up issues like separation of Church and State.
I think that if the Christians start politicizing religion, (example: refusing communion to politicians who are pro-abortion) then they should lose their status as religious institutions. Regulate them. tax those church propertys. make them pay taxes on those tithes. If they want to turn away from God and play with or against candidates for President of the United States then they are just another lobby group and should be treated as such.
Posted by: Cettie
Well put, Laborat! Bravo!!
Posted by: SKYHN
If you ever watched Leave it to Beaver, there were times when you could see that when Ward came home he held back from yelling at June "Wheres my dinner bitch?".
Posted by: laborat
philistines...I'm surrounded by philistines... 
Posted by: redwench
the baptists are apparently not happy with parishoners lists going to the bush campaign. there are some signs of life yet.
Posted by: justinious
Get yer bitch-ass back in the kitchen and make me some PIE, Wenchy 
Posted by: laborat
to those who are in a attempt at humor(?), using the b***** word and such, this is not good. We are/were trying to have, (I thought), a conversation/POV discusssion here. I guess this is rapidly becoming a place where nothing of any meaning has any meaning so I am beginning to think why bother to express an opinion or debate a point. Nobody seems to really give a sh**. Derailing a thread started by Canis Lupus is pressing your luck IMHO but what the hell, by the time he gets around to doing something the damage is done. I can only hope in the long run you are measured by your posting quality and judged as such. Alas even that seems moot since the majority around here are just weaned from Similac. Bah. Humbug.
Posted by: justinious
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by laborat
to those who are in a attempt at humor(?), using the b***** word and such, this is not good. We are/were trying to have, (I thought), a conversation/POV discusssion here. I guess this is rapidly becoming a place where nothing of any meaning has any meaning so I am beginning to think why bother to express an opinion or debate a point.
|
It was, in fact, a miserably executed attempt at humor. I apologize and will stop crapping on threads that, when taken in a serious context, are best left to those with impeccable manners and spelling. Long live the proletariate! Yadda, yadda.
Posted by: marioze53
Laborat, the Church needs more people like yourself. Its depressing to think that the Church, amidst the recent scandals and hundreds of years of corruption is called the instrument of God. How dare we? It has become little more than a country club for the morally justified. The church that you see (I hope) is not your idea of what it means to be Christian.
Posted by: Bix VT
I think we are all familiar with labo's veiws on Christianity...
I have to agree with the two of you though (marioze and labo). Especially the following:
Quote:
|
I think that if the Christians start politicizing religion, (example: refusing communion to politicians who are pro-abortion) then they should lose their status as religious institutions. Regulate them. tax those church propertys. make them pay taxes on those tithes. If they want to turn away from God and play with or against candidates for President of the United States then they are just another lobby group and should be treated as such
|
Definately right on. There is far too many political sway in most churches nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
