[Silver]

Figuratively speaking, of course.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PL04J01

You're allied with a bunch of people who aren't going to be happy until Ayatollah Dobson is in charge, and women are kept barefoot and pregnant. Oh, and sex? Nope...not unless you pump out a kid each time. Infertile? Too bad...because masturbation isn't cool with Jesus either.

Has anyone read "The Handmaid's Tale"? I see it as a horrible vision of a potential future, these people see it as spiritual nirvana...

 

[dropkick]

Brought to you by the Family Research Council..Defending Family, Faith and Freedom(if you're a white, hetero, christian male)

 

[Silver]

don't forget fertile, fervent, and fundie

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

I just got home to my parents house for thanksgiving, this is more conservatism than I can handle....

 

[DRB]

Did ya'll read this article? Here are some of my favorites.

The moral and family disciplines of the old Roman Republic were gone, replaced by the intoxications of empire.

Emm... Are they bringing about their own downfall?

Caesar Augustus, worried about the plummeting Roman birthrate, even implemented the so-called "Augustan Laws" in 18 B.C., measures that punished adultery, penalized childlessness, and showered benefits on families with three or more children. These laws may have slowed, but did not reverse, the moral and social deterioration.

What's that saying...... something about history repeating itself.

He rambles on and on about Sweden and the creation of a welfare state because of their stance on legitimacy. But then he thinks that the following is a good idea.

Whatever the future, it is likely that most households with two or more children will continue to be married-couple, natural-parent homes. These are still, and always will be, the places most open to what we once called "a full quiver." We could encourage them by tying retirement benefits to family size: that is, the more children that a couple brought into the world, the higher their later monthly Social Security benefit. Or, we could create a new tax credit against payroll taxes:rebating, say, 20 percent of the current 15.3 percent tax facing parents for each child born.

Talk about building a welfare state. In such a faith based system as they are espousing, wouldn't the more children a family had the less support that would be required from the state? Or did they forget the whole honor your father and mother.

It is now clear that the "right of privacy," conceived by the Supreme Court nearly four decades ago, is the enemy of both marriage and procreation.

In reference to The U.S. Supreme Court's 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut. (the legality of birth control.

The overwhelming drive to point out that marriage is for procreation is also pretty distribuing. Well I guess you need to be biologically perfect to fit in their little definition. Procreation simply isn't an option for many of us. So I guess in those cases they should just throw the marriage away and try with someone else. ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!

And lastly the thing that really chaps my ass, not one time in the entire article is the word adoption mentioned. And that's true of the entire website (except when its railing against homosexuals adopting) Want to strenghten family in the US? Get kids out of orphanges and foster care and into real families where they can learn about creating real bonds and real family values and stop the horrible cycle some of these kids are trapped. But noooo.. we should get caught up in the narrow and archaic idea that biology makes a family and nothing else.

All I can say is that was an excellent granting of PhD, that university should be very very proud. Hope he wasn't such an idiot when they gave it to him.

 

[dante]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Basing Social Security on how many kids you bring into the world. Only problem is that the neo cons feel the exact OPPOSITE regarding additional welfare payments for young mothers...

 

[Andyman_1970]

You're allied with a bunch of people who aren't going to be happy until Ayatollah Dobson is in charge, and women are kept barefoot and pregnant. Oh, and sex? Nope...not unless you pump out a kid each time. Infertile? Too bad...because masturbation isn't cool with Jesus either.

Dude have you even read any of his stuff? I would venture a guess that you haven't. Now I'm no Dobson disciple, but I do agree with his take on a few things. You would be surprised (or maybe not) on his stand regarding homosexuals, that first a foremost a Christian is to love (unconditionally) these folks.

And as for your sex comments, could you be any more inflamatory (and so way off the mark it's a dot to you)? Come on Silver, don't be the N8 of the opposite pole.

 

[Silver]

Did you read the link Andy? I'm not gay, and this guy is speculating about invalidating MY marriage just so homosexuals can't have the same rights that heterosexuals do.

Guess who a founding member of the FRC was...I've read a bunch of Dobson's stuff. He's Dr. Phil with God to some audiences and and a witch burning Puritan to others. It depends whom he's talking to.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Did you read the link Andy? I'm not gay, and this guy is speculating about invalidating MY marriage just so homosexuals can't have the same rights that heterosexuals do.

Some thoughts on the article:

Jesus also condemned adultery and divorce.

And I could see not connection to the use of this passage and the author's argument.

In 1 Timothy 2:15, Paul taught that "woman will be saved through bearing children."

This is a direct "slam" on the Goddess Artemis, to whom women prayed to for safety during child birth.

And in Ephesians 5, he equated the marital love of husband and wife to the bond between Christ and his Church:

Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church. ... Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. ... "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one." This is a great mystery. ...[15].

No mention of procreation there in that passage. Paul also says in Corintians that if you so horny you can't control yourself get married........advice my wife and I took............LOL - so his premise that Paul somehow was an advocate of only having sex to make babies is thin.

It's very interesting dude never mentions the Song of Solomon, a whole book of the Bible devoted to erotic love (within the bonds of a marriage of course). It's more interesting that he plays the Gnostic card. It seems that this "act" of having sex is somehow "not spiritual" or "dirty" - even for a husband and wife that are followers of Jesus. This is an odd position (excuse the pun) for this dude to take, esspecially with his Gnostic arguement. One of the tennents of Gnostisism (sp?) was that the phyisical was bad and the spiritual was good.

The deal is there is not disctintion between the two in the Hebrew Scriptures - in fact there is no Hebrew word for our word Spiritual - because to label one thing as spiritual is to label something else as not spiritual. The Hebrew (and thus Eastern) writers of the Scriptures understood EVERYTHING a person did was spiritual. Paul even says in Colosians to do EVERYTHING in word or deed in the Name of Jesus - everything includes sex. There is nothing "dirty" or "unspiritual" about sex in fact it is a deeply spiritual act regarless if it results in a child.

This dude thinks that Gnostisism (sp?) if the "fault" for this whole Gay marriage deal or whatnot - when he himself has a Gnostic and Dualistic (and I would strongly argue unBiblical) understanding of sex.

Anyway...................that article is a great example of what you get when you try to apply Western reasoning to an Easter Text.

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

Yeah this guy is a clown and his argument makes no sense, I can't even quite figure out exactly what he is trying to say. I don't like James Dobson much at all, but even he wouldn't say something this stupid. My main problem with Dobson is that he seems to think that if parents can keep their kids off of drugs, alcohol, and sex that they will turn out fine. This was a popular belief in the circle I grew up in and let me tell you, there are plenty of depressed, miserable, non drunk, drug free virgins out there.