Conservatives Urge Closer Look At Marriage

~snip~

NEW YORK - "Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh, soul-searching look at the institution.

"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor who writes frequently about family issues.

While Christensen doesn't oppose the campaign to enact state and federal bans on gay marriage, he worries it's distracting from immediate threats to marriage's place in society.

"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated — if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness — then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."

~snip~

bold text mine - L.E.

more from yahoo

Get ready to hitch up 'n breed for the Homeland!

:hi:

...a very progressive friend of mine emailed me a few months ago with "praise Jesus" phrase peppering the whole thing. Turns out, they came to her house in Manitou and convinced her of God's way. I'm a sinner, of course, and we don't talk anymore. Very sad.

...now they're going after those who chose not to have kids?? Jesus fucking christ...what's next: a REQUIREMENT to pop some kiddos out for the Homeland??

Why not here?

Can't be havin' more dang librul babies..no sir...

see http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-medals/nazi2.htm

eom

Meanwhile, Hello Handmaids Tale...

Marriage, and Abortion. They don't really have any other agenda....

someone put up a link to this story in freepville, but no one is taking the bait...

...guess how many of them are divorced?

I like the idea of going backwards in time and showing these "conservatives" what REAL conservatism was like...they will soon turn LIBRUL!

or never married.

I don't know one single freeper - not one! - who has been married to the same spouse for twenty years. Like me. Not bragging or anything. Just pointing out a fact.

Yes, this Pagan has been married to an Agnostic for more than twenty yeas. It's our first marriage - neither of us have ever been divorced.

Been married to the same guy for 20-1/2 years, together for 27 years (this Unitarian-Religious-Scientist to my favorite 'virtual atheist').

We are the only liberal Democrats on the block, and, by the way, the only couple on our first marriage.

And, before we were blessed with our beautiful 8-year-old, WE ENGAGED IN DELIBERATE CHILDLESSNESS for about 20 years. Scandalous!

Bible-belt states.

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS2.shtml

The lowest divorce rate is in liberal "gay-marriage" Massachusetts

Those Bible Belt states are where abstinence until marriage reins supreme. So, all those 18-year-olds get married right out of high school because their hormones are going overdrive, and that's what God wants. Then, five years later, when she realizes everything she's missed out on by having 3 kids in 5 years, or when he remembers fond dreams of college after being laid off from the Stop N Go, they divorce.

I am just waiting on it..."those damn LIBERALS in our state, they are the ones increasing our state's divorce numbers".

Putting idears in their kids heads, about college, and women working outside the home, and evolution . . .

Actually, in the end, I'm sure they'll find a way to blame it on Bill Clinton's penis.

A right-wing soccer mom told me a few months ago that Bill Clinton had caused "irreparable harm" to millions of high school students by teaching them about oral sex.

She was also convinced that we had to invade Iraq to get Osama bin Laden.

Maybe that lady lives under a rock...I went to elementary school in Houston, TX, and everyone I knew there back in the seventies was well aware of what a blowjob was.

I think a lot of these people just forget how young they were when they learned about sex. I can remember being told jokes about sucking and licking genitals as early as first and second grade.

The only thing causing irreparable harm is the immature reaction by grownups when confronted with these matters and their inability to explain them to children...most likely due to a lack of experience and the sexual frustrastion resulting from it.

Teen pregnancies went down under Clinton.

Nevada's "easy in-easy out" approach to marriage means lots of people jet to Reno for quickie weddings and quickie divorces--thereby skewing the divorce rate far higher than it really should be. This has always been one of Nevada's most reliable ways of raising state revenue.

I would LOVE it if states were able to skirt the Establishment Clause and not respect weddings and divorces conducted in Nevada; the rate would remain fairly high but it wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

Ah, the next four years are going to be so much fun.

Freaky fuckers. All I can do is laugh at them.

Pretty soon we will all have to go about greeting each other with "Blessed be the fruit." I'd better start practicing.

:scared:

-wildflower

(For those who don't know, this is a _Handmaid's Tale_ reference.)

often here.

The "deliberate childlessness" quote was what got me - not like the rest of the article isn't bad enough. Don't these morans realize the Earth is overcrowded with unwanted children already? Oh, I forgot, the Raptor is going to strike any minute, so who cares about all that "stewardship of the Earth" stuff!

L.E. - PROUDLY and DELIBERATELY CHILDLESS!

It was the first thing I thought of when I read the original post.

about this marriage option for many years.

I have been lectured by my fundie relatives -- and have cut off contact with them over this issue.

If you follow this to a "logical" conclusion -- women will no longer own their own bodies --

This may be one of the reasons why the fundies fought the Equal Rights Amendment. Women are NOT equal in the Fundie's world view -- women are to be either subjugated to their fathers or other male relative until they are married.

I keep waiting for my ATM account to be siezed.

And as I am getting past childbearing years, and have the audacity to be in school to become a minister (a woman in the pulpit--blasphemous!), I'm expecting to be rounded up and sent to a work relocation camp.

Very, very scary! :scared:

Birth control is now under assault.

Heaven forbid that them slaves don't copulate and make more slaves!! :puke:

proves they are after all birth control, not just abortion

happened in the 1960s, not that long ago. Until that decision, states like CT had laws making the purchase and use of any contraception a crime. The Supreme Court decision making contraception legal in all fifty states is based on the same privacy right that is the foundation of Roe v Wade. If Roe v Wade goes, it is entirely possible that the contraception decisions will go too, making it possible for states to outlaw contraception again.

No joke.

Griswold v. Connecticut was the SC decision which guaranteed *married* couples access to contraception. Unmarried couples did not have that same guarantee until 1972 with the Eisenstadt decision. Merely 32 years ago.

And Scalia has very publicly stated that he wants to see Griswold overturned. And yet, none of the repubs I know believe me when I tell them these things. :shrug:

For the last few years, I've been truly thankful that I have three daughters and no sons. Reason being, I doubt the religious nutjobs would ever go for drafting women. Now.. hmmm..

It's looking like sending our daughters to Canada for college may be a good idea. It'll be hard to see them much if they move to Canada, but at least they will all be safe and have choices.

The fact that this administration is trying to make our country so much like The Handmaid's Tale scares the living crap out of me. They'd just send me to clean up the nuclear waste. I'm not even useful for breeding anymore.

These people are really nuts!

I don't have kids and I don't want them - what are they going to do, round us up and force us to breed like cattle?

I presume.

Of course.

are up the creek with these people. She remarried after my dad died.
She is 75 and he is 81. I think they will probably be childless.

Under the radar, so to speak, make the nuttiest Senators and Representatives think there was a bigger constituency for this than there really is and encourage them to overreach.

You know, the idea of putting divorce laws on the ballot to offset gay marriage laws was supposed to be to get these people to see their hypocrisy. I never dreamed anybody would actually think it was a good idea. "deliberate childlessness" Unbelievable anybody would even say those words. Absolutely unbelievable. First they say can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. Then they make it a stigma to not have children. They're out of their minds.

It is almost tempting to be a devils advocate for this.

I truly cannot believe that most people in America want The Handsmaids Tale to be reality.

I thought we should play devil's advocate too, BEFORE I saw somebody actually spouting this as a good idea. They've been able to sell so many other insane ideas, I wouldn't be surprised if they sell this one too. Arkansas has two kinds of marriages already, regular and a "Covenant Marriage"; both by law. We better be careful with these nutjobs!

"Couples entering into a covenant marriage (described as a "commitment for life") undergo premarital counseling; agree to seek counseling if they're having problems; and agree to seek divorce only in certain cases, after a specific period of time has elapsed.

Valid reasons for ending a covenant marriage include adultery, criminal behavior, physical or sexual abuse, "habitual drunkenness for one year," and "cruel and barbarous treatment."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200411%5CCUL20041109b.html

and people there have the option to enter into such a marriage (I think the LA legislature passed laws granting such marriage licenses a couple of years ago).

Are there any statistics about divorces in such marriages?

They don't. Hypocrites.

Are you supporting such idiocy? Perhaps you don't remember how things were for women before divorce became easier either.

It was last year and didn't go anywhere. Now that they have a gov who would sign the bill, I expect it will show up again.

Do you think JP's will be stoped from doing that whole joining thing
and the only place you can get married by law will be in a church.

While I disagree with this, I can see a case against casual divorce. As for cohabitation, it doesn't bother me but the religious right's antipathy isn't surprising.

But DELIBERATE CHILDLESSNESS?! My God! What are they gonna do? FORCE people to have children? TAX people for NOT having children? And what fucking right do they have to try and make people have children they don't want to have?

When people with children get tax credits and people without children are taxed to support public services and subsidies solely for children, the tax policy is clear: it's a "childless tax." Vouchers themselves are an abominable extension of this tax, establishing a fungible entitlement.

And on top of that, they HAVE started trying to force people to have children. That is why fundie pharmacists are refusing to sell the BC pill, and why many insurance companies will pay for fertility treatments but not for birth control. It scares the crap out of me.

in taxes for schools and other social services, but I don't see why people who have chosen to have children should pay LESS.

Also, don't forget that married couples are more likely to be able to take advantage of the home mortgage deduction. And for all the "marriage penalty" bullshit we hear all the time, married people are taxed at a lower rate than single people. Want proof? Next time you do your taxes, find your taxable amount and go to the tax table at the back of the booklet. You'll see that the highest rate for ANY income level is for singles. Married people always pay a lower rate (and that's also after getting to take a bigger deduction). Why can't there be one rate for all incomes?

Face it, the entire tax system is a scam to get us to be drones who buy into the system. The corporate powers that be figure that if they can get us to get married, squirt out babies, and buy homes, we'll be so concerned about crabgrass, the PTA, and increasing our equity that we won't have the time or interest to take to the streets and become engaged in radical politics (riots are bad for property values, ya know?).

with "traditional" wives. That goes for state legislators as well. The type of people who get elected are generally socially conservative. They can't imagine what it's like to live differently. They will go along with this fundy nonsense because (1) the fundies will be extremely persistent and (2) when it comes down to it, most congressmen won't really see anything wrong with the ideas.

This could all become law a lot more quickly than most people imagine.

will be faced with a HUGE backlash. Straight people can sit aside and erode gay rights, but when it comes to their own rights being eroded, I'm sure they'll tell the crusaders "Fuck you"

Then they came for the abortionists, and I didn't have one, so I did nothing.

Hello??

Hello???

Anybody out there???

And dream on if you don't think this can happen.

"Kerry landslide" my ass!

"Wait till we win the next election" my ass!

Just how deluded do you people think that this will NOT come to pass?

If I may wildly extrapolate - it could become China in reverse - only worse.

a) compulsory marriage

b) couples who choose to be childless - a child might be chosen for them - compulsory adoption.

The fundie prime objective - overturning Roe - will mean an abundance of children in need of adoption.

I know it sounds crazy - but given the times we live in - I wouldn't rule anything out.

Or walk to Canada. Walking would probably be easier. :)

I will NOT get married. Never wanted to.
I will NOT have children. Never wanted to.
I'm adopted. But I don't want any kids.

AAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG. :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

This country has gone f#@%&%g NUTS!

I'm asexual so sexual orientation and abortion will never be an issue for me personally. But if I let them take other people's rights, they'll eventually come for mine.

It's called "enlightened self-interest," all you fundies. Read up on your founding fathers, whom you'd rather enshrine than understand.

Hope there's lots of room in the sewers of your hometown.

Or how many gals on the side.

NT!

And it's mine and hubby's business, thank you very much.

Now that that's out of the way - The article is a bunch of hogwash. Those people are only dealing with the "problem" on the back end. Divorce and tax laws won't save marriage. Marrieds with kids already get tax breaks for their chosen lifestyle. People are attending church in record numbers. Yet, divorce rates are still high.

My analysis of the positions that the radical, white fundamentalist clerics take is that they don't like seeing the numbers of white people dwindling. I believe that it scares their homophobic core to no end. The idea of the earth being inhabited by a coffee colored humanity drives them teaspoons. They'll give lip service to their brothers and sisters in the black churches. But like this administration will grab votes and then turn their back on the Baptists, so too will the white Baptist fundies turn their backs when people of color get dragged to death behind trucks.

Anyhow, they start grabbing at straws like taxes and marriage education. And then crucify the homosexual - the innocent bystanders to the failure of their beloved marriage institution. I picture the gay community standing at the curb watching the marriage parade go by as the floats crash and burn only to be blamed for the mess because they ask for their place at the table. Sheesh!

Even Chris Matthews gets it right once in a while. The other night night he interviewed the head of the Southern Baptist Conference who was insisting that we need to encourage women to marry the father of their children. It was the last minute of the broadcast and Matthews pointed out that a marriage can only be strong when that father has a job that will support the family. It left the radical fundie with his mouth agape and no time left to reply. An interesting tableau. After all, this isn't a chicken and egg question to toy over. Marriage is wedded to economics.

I think that the fundies don't have a damned clue about why marriages are falling apart left and right. I think their rigid view of life and spirituality, blind to realities, is a part of the problem. And scapegoating lefties and gays is their deliberate sin.

That's my solution, anyway.

I cannot bear any sort of discrimination, but that is what I thought when I read the article - "more white babies, and blame the gays and other minorities for all of our problems."
Thank you for saying it much better than I ever could!

What scares me is that the group that the fundies share their homophobia with is the Neo Nazi movement. That's a marriage made in hell that can only hurt our country.

:crazy:

I know way too many conservatives who say 'marriage is only between a man and a woman' who don't have any children. They voted for the Marriage amendments. So, I would actually like to vote to rip their rights to marry from them as they did so many others.

It's childish, yes, to want revenge, but I would love to say to just one couple, "Marriage is between a man, a woman, and god knows how many kids." :evilgrin:

Liberals propose having to pass an intelligence test before being able to get married. There sure would be a lot fewer marriage licenses being issued to conservatives.

He's certainly entitled to his opinions, but I don't see any special expertise here. His university faculty webpage doesn't seem to list any refereed publications. He supposedly edits a wingnut webzine "Family in America," dedicated to the proposition that it's wrong to interfere with reproduction: editshttp://www.profam.org/pub/xfia_cur.htm

Thanks for the visual, but warn me next time. Talk about someone who SHOULDN'T be procreating.

We've got to figure out how some of these articles even get written. How does an English professor get quoted on family issues?

... essentially provide prefab story skeletons for lazy reporters.

Am I going to be forced to procreate now? Good god, what is going on in this world?

If divorce becomes illegal then there are some serious Republicans in trouble starting with the bloated goat himself, Limbaugh. 3 up and 3 down for the ol' Rushbo. Thanks Gawd I have two children already!:)

I'm originally from Ohio!

I don't want kids and never will.

I was born with too many physical problems that I don't want to pass on and I couldn't justify bringing anyone into this kind of world.

(And I'm very pro-choice). Just keep it in the back of your mind. That's how I was blessed with my daughter (it is only a myth that we have too many adoptive parents; 'relinquished infants' tend to go out of the system quickly...but all of the other kids need homes).

I'm also a retired social worker always looking to refer good liberals to the System. We need good liberal Democrats to raise future Americans.

or any of the other myriad of nauseating losers that inhabit the dark recesses of the GOP, must be brain dead on purpose just to ensuffer the horrors of allowing men like that in their lives, let alone their bedrooms..UGH! Its unimaginable!!
Oh and so much for conservatives and their hypocritical stance on keeping Big Government out of people's lives....

ban divorce and annul all their 2nd, 3rd etc marriages and get them back to the one they promised to be with until death do them part. Fucking hypocrites.

Let's show them that Democrats are really serious about protecting marriage. Let's out Christian them.

Better yet... let's close all those nasty sports stadiums and use the stadiums to throw adulterers to the lions. As long as we are going to do the job...let's really do it!

is that the government shouldn't be involved in it at all. Let it be involved in registering civil-legal unions to guarantee property rights and child welfare, but let marriages be performed in the Church of your choice. True separation of Church and State.

My best friend and I aren't gay, but just little old lady roommates with no other family and we would love to be able to take tax advantages as a legal couple and guarantee that if something happened to one of us, the other would have some legal rights in our shared property without having to consult expensive lawyers.

Welcome to DU!

I am so sick and tired of making this arguement on DU. I married my husband in a civil secular service. We are married not civil unionized. You can get married without religion, but you can't get married without the state, sorry fundies! Marriage predates christianity. It is about society, not about religion. No religion owns the word marriage. Religious people can have religious unions if they like, but religious people do not have the right or the rite to define my relationship with my husband.

Personally, I find those with religious unions make a mockery of marriage with their high divorce rates and lack of equality in their relationships. So how about we have marriages for everyone. If the religious want a special distinction they can have religious unions. They are the ones who have a problem with all this. They can change their classification.

Bud out of my relationship.

Completely retrograde and hopelessly fanatic? Yes. Hypocritical? No.

Personally, I hope this movement picks up some steam. It will shatter the republican party at its base of fundamentalist nutjobs and 3rd-marriage NASCAR dads.

the childless thing goes too far, tho

Shrub's past record for families/children/parenting is less than stellar...this is from his Texas regime... making things "plummet to the bottom" is nothing new for him:

http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/bush.htm



Study: Texas One of the Worst Places to Raise Children
Washington, D.C. -- Under Gov. George W. Bush Texas ranks as nearly the last place in America that parents would want to raise their children, according to statistics released by a independent, nonpartisan national child advocacy organization. A 1999 study from the Children's Rights Council found that Texas ranks 48th of the 50 states in objective measures affecting children's health, including high school drop-out and teen pregnancy rates. Just four year ago -- right after Bush began his first term -- Texas ranked 29th, and has plummeted past 19 states on its way to the bottom.

you'll see a WHOLE lot of new Democrats real fast. YAY! Bring on the Christian Theocracy of the United States of America!!!

Signed,

A Democrat who has never been divorced


(Deliberate Childlessness? Geez. Wonder if we'd even get in trouble for deliberately only having one????)

In addition to the environmental issues caused by human overreproduction, there are personality issues. Neither of my parents should've had kids, but they did it because it was what "everybody" did. My father figured out after his first child that he didn't want any more; my mother was so heavily indoctrinated she still hasn't figured it out.

She was so disturbed my decision not to have children (which I made when I was about twelve or thirteen) that she forced me to work as a babysitter, much to my grief and that of my charges. It only confirmed that I didn't want to have kids of my own, so in a way it was a good thing: it armed me for dealing with the pronatalists.

Good reasons not to have children:

1. You dislike children. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's the people in our society who like children too much in the wrong way that are most dangerous to them. It's better not to have children than to insist that yours be little adults from day one.


2. You are so absorbed by your career that you don't have time to be a parent. Your kid will spend their entire life fighting feelings of inadequacy. One look at George W. Bush and the horror he's brought about should be enough to convince any intelligent human that this is a valid reason not to have kids.


3. You only want children who meet specific criteria. For instance, you only want male or heterosexual or healthy or religious children. You'll get whatever you get, and if you can't be happy with that, the child will pay the price. Don't do it.


4. A really awful genetic condition--Tay-Sachs, for example--runs in the family. It's really not fair to the kid to be brought into the world to suffer and die at a young age. How about fostering some older kids instead? Or nurturing some nonhumans? In order to end euthanasia of unwanted domestic animals, every household in the US would have to adopt 15 dogs and 45 cats, not to mention rabbits and lizards and so on, which are often euthanized immediately because of the difficulty in finding them homes. You can make a significant difference to some unhappy, helpless beings.


5. You understand that the biggest single danger to the environment of our planet is human overpopulation. Take some of the money you save from not having to save for kids' college accounts and put it into programs that help people in poor countries meet secure living conditions. That's the single most consistent factor in causing a drop in a human group's birthrate.

There's work to be done on this planet other than procreating. If you have good reasons not to procreate, that frees you up for some of it. It should be considered a good thing to do that.

I'd also point out that not everyone is cut out to be married. I'm single by choice, too. It's not irresponsibility or a fear of growing up. I am one of the most responsible nonhuman companion caretakers going, and I am extremely self-sufficient (hence responsible).

I think the core of the problem with the right is that they resolve their insecurities about their own life choices by trying to make everyone make the same ones. If they could just see that different people should make different life choices, then they wouldn't need to feel insecure that people different from themselves live differently.

Married 30+ years, no children by choice, but work one day a week as a children's docent in Golden Gate Park. I like being with the little darlings as long as I can give them back after an hour or two. And I don't have to deal with the snails and earthworms in the pockets afterwards.

Seriously, I don't have the patience or the inclination to be around people under the age of reason (I've come to greatly admire elementary school teachers, though). People like to say that childless people are selfish and self-centered, although why they then go on to say that we should have children, which if we are so self-centered can't be good for the kids....I never did understand that. People want to have kids, fine with me. People don't want to have kids, even better.

Having a child does not magically transform you into a loving, unselfish being. Look at the child abuse and neglect statistics.

And, to be honest, just look at parents! So many of them believe their children's purpose is to be them when their own bodies run out. The pressure some parents put on their kids to believe what they believe and do what they do is ridiculous. It doesn't contribute to the child abuse statistics, but it is child abuse nonetheless. It certainly isn't anything less than selfish. Personally, I think most people don't sacrifice for their children so much as invest in them: they're expected to continue the parent in culture, personality, and (with biological children) genes, not to mention being a retirement insurance policy. My dog will never share my genes, culture, or personality; he's eating into my retirement savings, and he most likely won't outlive me. Who is being truly unselfish here?

Some people are selfish; some people aren't. Some people are parents; some people aren't. The groups have no relationship to each other.

I can hear the chanting already , and its getting louder...


We're not gonna take it
Never did and never will
Don't want no religion
And as far as we can tell
We ain't gonna take you
Never did and never will
We're not gonna take you
We forsake you
Gonna rape you
Let's forget you better still.


-The Who : Tommy (1969)

...to lives as chattel - being childless would be a crime, getting a divorce, impossible...

that they come up with some legislation they can push that will outlaw divorce, etc. Not only will it never pass, but it will scare the bejesus out of independents and moderate Republicans. I know several Bush voters who laughed at me when I told them this kind of shit would be coming soon. I predict they won't be laughing four years from now but will be pulling that lever for the Democrat.

I'm childless and proud of it...Now these people are going to make me father children???

Facism is here, folks....I don't blame people that want to find a new country one bit

I wouldn't mind if they would outlaw deliberate childishness. That would make GWB a criminal, wouldn't it?

and a lot of marriages will be saved.

that institutions don't have souls.

...marriage in America began unraveling long before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh, soul-searching look at the institution.

Ladies...your uterous is not your own. The right says you must have children.

omfg, these people differ very little from the theocrats of the Islamic persuasion

highest divorce rate in the entire nation. (According to a report on KTUL this evening)...:eyes:

of that gay agenda? Be scared straight folks, we are trying to destroy your marriages, here we come, look out....

Okay, I can't hide any longer. I have been insidously undermining the foundations of marriage for years. My wife and I have no children, and I've had a vasectomy to make sure we don't in the future. This deliberate childlessness has no doubt contributed to the instability of our own marriage (15 years, plus an additional ten years together before that). Does anyone know where I'm supposed to turn myself in?

But, in case anyone is curious...

from http://www.gender-news.com/other.php?id=23

Deliberate Childlessness: Moral Rebellion With a New Face
Monday, June 28th, 2004
by R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Joe and Deb Schum of Atlanta aren't worried about baby proofing their house or buying a car seat. As a matter of fact, the couple doesn't ever intend to have children and they are proud of their childlessness. According to the newspaper's report, "the Schums are part of a growing number of couples across the country for whom kids don't factor in the marriage equation."

The paper also pointed to the fact that the nation's birthrate fell last year to an historic low of 66.9 births per 1,000 women age 15-44. That represents a decline of 43% since just 1960. "Many childless couples," according to the report, "revel in their decision, despite badgering from baffled mothers and friends. Others struggle with the choice before keeping the house kid-free."

The Schums just don't want kids to get in the way of their lifestyle. They enjoy cruising to the Georgia mountains on their matching Harley-Davidson motorcycles. They love their gourmet kitchen, outfitted with the very latest stainless steel appliances and trendy countertops. Deb Schum explains, "if we had kids, we would need a table where the kids could do homework." Clearly, children aren't a part of their interior design plan.

This pattern of childlessness has caught the attention of others in the media. The left-wing internet site Salon.com actually published a series of articles entitled, "To Breed or Not to Breed." This series of articles featured couples and individuals who have decided that children are not a part of their chosen lifestyle.

snip

The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children. This reminds us of our responsibility to raise boys to be husbands and fathers and girls to be wives and mothers. God's glory is seen in this, for the family is a critical arena where the glory of God is either displayed or denied. It is just as simple as that.

http://www.gender-news.com/other.php?id=23

I knew there were fanatical extremists out there, but that is beyond sickening.

All I can say, is thank all the gods I was able to talk a doctor into tying my tubes 15 years ago. I feel sorry for the young women now for whom that option retreats further and further into the distance. Procreate or be burned at the stake. You have no other function.

:scared:

They're gonna pass a "You must fuck and not use contraceptives" law?

...among totalitarian and fascist regimes throughout recent history has been state control over reproduction. Abort or sterilize the 'undesirables', and force pregnancy on the 'desirables.' To think that anyone would want to lead our country down the same path in this regard as Nazi Germany, Ceausescu's Romania, and the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia is simply mind-boggling to me.

The deliberate childlessness thing really makes me sick. I can't stand kids, never ever want to have them, and to be forced to is my idea of hell on earth.

:puke: