Marianne has a naked breast because it’s an allegory, you cretin

[Ben Kenobi]

Can anyone solve this paradox?

The correct answer is that the presupposition, "religions are anti-women" is wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

'It's a completely false argument based on a poorly worked premise. Restricting rights does nothing to promote responsibility.

No, Gian. The argument is that rights are balanced by responsibilities. If people don't keep up their responsibilities, they will lose their rights.

What does it matter to have the right to vote, if only half of Americans ever exercise it? What does it matter to have freedom of speech, if we have folks shouting down people that they disagree with?

[Ben Kenobi]

SoCons have already tried any number of incentives to encourage marriage; AFAIK, they don't work.

What actual social conservative policy has been enacted between now and 1960 that has actually strengthened and not weakened marriage? Prior to 1960, we did not have no-fault divorce, etc. It has been a constant slide against social conservative principles.

The problem is simply too deeply rooted; a lot of it comes from the lack of good jobs for poorly educated men, and our massive incarceration rate which renders thousands of men unemployable, and therefore unattractive as husbands, every year. It's all interconnected (with the economic factors traceable to the Enlightenment in different ways from the social ones), and only the relatively well-to-do are insulated from the general social rot. For now.

This is a solid argument against welfare. If people could get out of welfare by making a good marriage, then that would obviate the purpose of the program. Instead, what we see is that welfare perpetuates itself. Woman ends up going on welfare. Rather than getting off welfare, chooses to stay on welfare. Has a kid, stays on welfare. Kid grows up - that kid hasn't had a family with two parents. Kid is well behind the eight ball and ends up going on welfare, etc. Has a kid, rinse repeat.

The biggest thing if you want to be wealthy in the US is to do three things.

1. Finish college
2. Get married after finishing college.
3. Have a kid after getting married.

The people who do all three steps will have a ticket out of poverty. Miss any of the three and you will struggle. Have a kid before getting married - you're on a ticket into poverty. Have a kid before finishing college, etc. Don't finish college. Don't get married, etc.

You are right that it is deeply rooted, but arguing that weakening marriage isn't having an impact is false. If you're arguing that the union of husband and wife is not the important part and that 'love' is all that matters, then what use is a 'marriage' when you don't love someone? Why not leave and go elsewhere.

That is the problem I have with the redefinition. We hear over and over, "it's not going to harm your marriage", but that's not the point. You are teaching it to children because the effort is to normalize things. That *is* going to have an impact on future marriage rates, and it's not going to be a positive one.

What is going to happen is that you'll increasingly see society divide between the so called haves and those who don't have anything, to the point where the one will want more than the others will be willing (or able) to pay.

What I see in my schools, is that there's going to be a whole lot more folks trying to ride the cart. They are in for a shock, because the benefits that are there now, are not going to be there for them at any point during their lives.

And why? Because the money and the math just doesn't add up.

[Bereta_Eder]

While I agree with you, there is some paradox that I still cannot solve.
Which is the fact that women in general are more religious than men.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2016/03/religion-and-gender

Islam seem to be one of these exceptions. But they explain it with this:


So it seems that, in order for men to be more devout than women, you have to force them. When left with more freedom in following the faith, women are more reluctant to give up.

What is it in religion that is more appealing to women than men?
And don't think it would be ignorance


Can anyone solve this paradox?

Could it be because of a real or perceived position of powerlesness? You tend to go to god in these instances.
Or it could be the maternal love is closer to god?

Who knows

About how they reconcile that, I overheard in a monastery (yes I went during vacations, great view also have a great photo putting my arm around a 5 meter cross on the top of a mountain (SO says I look like a russian hardcore monk )
Anyway, I overhead (it was a nuns monastery) that each gender sevres god from its "position" and I gathered that they don't see that as detrimental or diminishing but rather as different

[Giancarlo]

No, Gian. The argument is that rights are balanced by responsibilities. If people don't keep up their responsibilities, they will lose their rights.

What does it matter to have the right to vote, if only half of Americans ever exercise it? What does it matter to have freedom of speech, if we have folks shouting down people that they disagree with?

Lying Ben is lying once again. You have no argument and your argument is nonsensical. Rights are balanced by responsibilities? What is that supposed to mean? That gay people aren't responsible? Your argument is stupid.

By the way, if you are getting shouted down that is part of freedom of speech. People have a right to do that just as much as you have a right to voice your incredibly stupid viewpoints. Get real please. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Your silly vapid Christian viewpoints will be criticized thoroughly.

Getting married and having a kid is a way out of poverty? Are you ****ing kidding me? So you are against same sex marriage and you are against same sex couples from adopting... So you want us to stay impoverished? And there are plenty of wealthy people who may get married, but choose not to have kids. Your argument is one of the worst I have seen.

[Giancarlo]

By the way, there are plenty of single people who do finish college and go on in having very successful careers... And they don't get married. The idea that marriage is a way out of poverty is ****ing stupid. If a marriage fails that could ruin your financial situation quite significantly.

If you're arguing that the union of husband and wife is not the important part and that 'love' is all that matters, then what use is a 'marriage' when you don't love someone? Why not leave and go elsewhere.

Apparently you are such a bigot in thinking a same sex couple can't show the same love and shouldn't be able to get married.

That is the problem I have with the redefinition. We hear over and over, "it's not going to harm your marriage", but that's not the point. You are teaching it to children because the effort is to normalize things. That *is* going to have an impact on future marriage rates, and it's not going to be a positive one.

And the bigotry continues. Nobody is harming your marriage. Marriage isn't the key to getting out of poverty. And your ideas about this redefinition nonsense just shows you are grasping at the straws.

You will always be a bigot who can't accept other views.

And your argument against welfare is founded in lies, like your argument against public education. You want people to be responsible... According to your christian worldviews. You are a bigot and nothing more.

[Giancarlo]

Bens advice to getting out of poverty.

Finish college. He didn't do that.

Get married. Didn't do that either.

Have a kid. Lmao. How could Ben have a kid of his own when no woman would even consider dating him?

Again... It is the "do as I say, not as I do" christian bigotry from the typical source.