anatess2

I have not put in any sweeping claim that WOMEN are the reason Men are Single nor that MEN are the reason that Women are Single. If you think that anything I said approaches even within 10 miles of that sexist statement then I have failed in my communication.

Conceded. One of these days I'm gonna win a point on you.

It is a very interesting list and should have substantive things that can be used to determine contrast to Obama's (and what would probably be Hillary Clinton's) choices as they all had judicial experience. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-releases-list-of-names-of-potential-united-states-supreme-c

Like I said... we'll never see eye to eye on this one.

What does that have to do with governance? You can lead a parent to water, you can't make them drink it.

"Seems" is a good word. In the past, the politics of polygamy caused the Church to splinter. Politics of a failed bank caused people to leave in droves. It is not a condition unique to our time. It's easy to say gay marriage should be illegal if every single American Citizen is Mormon. Unfortunately, they only account for a small percentage of the population. Also, if gay marriage was in a vacuum - it has no implications beyond any other facet of American life - then it's easy to say no to gay marriage. As it stands, it is not that simple. Hence, the Lord instructs as to give to Cesar what is Cesar's and give to God what is God's. Until a majority of people understands the negative impacts gay marriage has to mortal society (not eternal as it is not a tangible measure of governance) it will be difficult to remove it from government. But supporting gay marriage is not the same as desiring to engage in gay marriage. The Mormon answer to this is really simple - Be a Missionary. So, a Mormon who supports gay marriage legislation but pours his entire life to strengthening his family and the families in his sphere of influence and pours his heart into his Mission is doing a whole lot of good.

The gist of the conversation was Lehi's claim that men don't marry because of the matriarchy of divorce. That statement you quoted is a rebuttal to that claim that if there's anyone who wouldn't marry because of divorce it would be the woman. It wasn't meant to excuse women who remain single. The statistics of a rising unmarried population is not gender specific. It is culture specific.

I have no problem with regulations. It is evident that free market does not work well without regulations. And no, it does not have to strip parents of their natural right to control the education of their children because the parent has the option to educate their children outside of such regulation in the same manner that people who buy their own food with their own money is not restricted by the regulations of food stamps. "Citizenship demands..." because in America, according to your Rule of Law... ignorantia juris non excusat in addition to the duty of each citizen to act as jury of his peers.

I agree. But that wasn't the basis of the discussion. The basis of the discussion was your claim that only the left are imposing things on people while the right isn't.

This is getting to be head-in-a-brick-wall discussion. Yes, I read it. Yes, I disagree with the position that such things are not imposing anything on anyone while the other side is the only one imposing things on someone. Yes, they can marry whom they want. Doesn't carry legality but they can. They also have the freedom to say that heterosexual marriage is also invalid. BUT, THE GOVERNMENT (before gay marriage became legal) forces the acknowledgement of their definition of marriage on everyone. AND THE GOVERNMENT attached certain benefits to this definition. For example - if you are a Martian male who married an American male in America, the American cannot sponsor a resident visa for the Martian because your marriage is not legal. So yes, it is not forcing the homosexual to do anything... but the reality is... it is still an imposition in the same manner that gun-free-zones are an imposition to those who don't think it is safe for them not to carry their firearms through restrictions. (Now, if you're going to say... but the male American can always marry a female Martian... then that's a different argument).

Of course I read the book... it's required reading in school. And yes, it is dystopia in the modern era when you have a society that is ruled by the principle that men are created equal and that liberty is inalienable right from God. It wasn't such a dystopia from the perspective of the Victorian era where a man's worth is dictated by the conditions of one's birth. Even as we are in the modern era of the Constitution, the principles don't become obsolete simply because there are still those who can't rise beyond the conditions of their birth regardless of how much the Constitution declares they are free.

This is, of course, a guy's perspective. In the Philippines where divorce is illegal, the male stereotype of fear of commitment is just as prevalent. In any case, even in America, people generally don't contemplate marriage thinking they're going to get divorced. And women getting married don't see getting half of the assets as a benefit. Women getting married end up having to pause their lives when the kids arrive... a lot of them losing out on valuable marketable skills in the workplace and as they get saddled with the children, their ability to find employment to support themselves becomes drastically limited. If there's anybody who should be wary of marriage because of divorce, it would be the woman.

I get what you're saying but I kinda disagree with this a slight bit. It is not the issue that marriage is relegated to the realm of the state. Rather, it is the issue that people don't believe there is value in religion. You say it's fornication, they say it's the natural order of things... because not only do they not believe in the paper the state issues, they don't believe in the power the church issues as well.

I have no words. This is plain and simple sexist.

We've been through this many times before, Lehi. And we end up with the same disagreements because you see government-involvement so much more differently than I do. And we'll never agree on it because it is a classic difference in ideology. The ideology is basically distilled into this classic Utopia (the Thomas Moore book) concept - “For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them.” When I see money spent on public welfare, I don't see it as simply a cost without benefit. I see it as a cost incurred for the benefit of not getting robbed/pillaged/whatever or supporting some thief's accommodations in jail. Now, of course, you can go overboard with welfare (like America's welfare system is now... and about to be with the "free college" demand). But the basic tenet of public welfare is that of avoiding the "making of thieves to punish". But when it comes to education, a government whose citizenship demands knowledge of the Rule of Law and defines citizenship as a birthright has the obligation to provide literacy for those whose first education disposed them to corruption do that they may retain the rights of citizenship with the knowledge of law. Of course, literacy doesn't have to be provided for through government public schools... government can provide for it in many ways including "education stamps". But yes, we'll never agree on this. And that's okay.

Amen on the division... it's great for campaign speeches, you know. But, I don't necessarily agree that marriage have to be removed from the purview of the state. The state can define the nucleic form of its society. And that, my friend, is Conservatism.

Okay, here's the misunderstanding: Ana: Government needs to run schools so there can be standardization. I NEVER said that. All I said was to bring schools to local control... local can be your house. But yes, Standardization is necessary. But, just like good health is necessary, the government doesn't need to be the one to define the end-all-be-all of what the standards of good health is. It's up to the locals to decide what that is. But, when farmer A claims his product is organic... the government may control what it means to be organic so that farmer B can't just say his is also organic because he happens to pour cow dung on it. So, back to schools - School A stamping a student's transcript with Passed Algebra may be defined by government as - yeah, he passed Algebra according to Anatess Standards for Daily Use but not according to The Book of Standards of Vermont. Or even beyond that - if he Passed Algebra according to The Book of Standards for Inter-State Scholastics For All 50. As long as people know that, then they can choose which schools they want to send their kid to if they have any plans of moving to Vermont... or if they want to compete for a mathemicatics-heavy job with some kid from Asia.

See here... they have all the participatory rights... That's the problem right there. They have the participatory rights IF THEY FORCE THEMSELVES to marry somebody they don't want.

A lot of Filipinos don't date. They have friends. And mothers who insert their favorites into their children's circle of friends. No trouble with gold diggers. He just doesn't want to get tied up at the moment. Like I told you... it's not only the women who are wanting to do stuff before getting married. At least, with the women, there's a biological clock that is ticking. The men don't have the same "deadline".

Yep, definitely right-winger. The gist of gay marriage movement is to make themselves EQUAL, not morally superior. Now, the classic libertarian answer would be to remove government control of marriage for all - straight or gay alike. Natural law then prevails. All gay marriage issues arise as government decided to put their fingerprints on marriage attaching rules and regulations of societal benefits to it. This is how you find yourselves with a class of people wanting the same benefits... even if the only benefit is moral equivalence. It's well and good for you to say - the first and fundamental right of an individual in a transaction is to not participate in the interaction when you yourself have the freedom to choose to participate. The other class doesn't have that choice to interact so all they get is the first and fundamental right and nothing more. It's fine if it's a private enterprise. It's something else when it is legislated. Now, you know (or if you don't, I'm telling you now)... in the issue of marriage I'm a right-winger. I believe that it is within the government's role to legislate marriage as it is the foundation of society. But, I don't pretend at all that legislatively defining marriage as only between one man and one woman is not enforcing my ideology on others.

I can name guys doing this exact same thing too... matter of fact, several are my cousins and nephews. One of them is 42 years old, engineer with a master's degree, works at an important high-paying job.... 6 figures even... lives in a high-rise condo downtown that can be the front-cover of HGTV magazine. Single, never been married, no steady girlfriend in sight. But yeah, I don't know anyone who has been divorced 4 times.

Illuminate my foggy brain, por favor. This is the disagreement as I see it: 1.) I said - Schools need to be local. I also said, standardization is necessary but it doesn't need to be mandated as it can be achieved through competition. 2.) Lehi said - standardization is harmful to students. 3.) I disagreed. 4.) You said something about my disagreement destroying itself... something I still don't quite understand how. So, what did I miss?

Aaaahhhmmm.... written by a right-wing guy, right? Because... the left is not always trying to enforce positions on others, rather, they are trying to unfeter themselves from State law by invoking Federal law to make State law null-and-void. For example - gay marriage is restricted in State Law, so they invoke the power of the Federal government to free themselves from it... so, right-wingers enforce their political positions on the left through State laws, the left free themselves from it through Federal law. Who is enforcing what on who... depends on whether you're a right-winger or left-winger. But, even in State law... legislating bathrooms don't fall within the proper role of government... but then States can define their own government... so...

"Seem" is a good word. There's a reason a cultural norm is to avoid religion and politics discussions on the dinner table. What you're seeing is the amazing ability of the Internet Age to make the entire world one big dinner table. That is a good thing - because, just as it is now very easy to reach someone on the other side of the world with your political views, it is also that much easier to reach the same people with your religious ones.

What the what??? It's not fantasy that made the "Fear of commitment" a male stereotype for years. It hasn't changed in the millennial era. In any case, the rise of singles statistics has not much to do with gender but more on the shift in culture to secularism where marriage does not provide benefits anymore. You want "love" - you don't have to get married to get it. You want "children", you don't have to get married to have them. You need a guy to lift the heavy things, you don't need to marry to have one at your beck and call. You need a girl to keep you company, you don't need a wife, you just need phone numbers.