Kerry Concedes

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I consider refering homosexuality as sinful or as a perversion, thereby refering to homosexuals as sinners or perverts, as like "hate" speech and I wish you would not repeat it here in these forums as it is antagonistic and creates hostility towards a group, of whom we have members here at IW, and thereby violate the rules. I doubt IWs gay membership appreciates it. I am personally distgusted by such language.

You are entitled to your opinion.

But you have a point about referring to homosexuality as a perversion. That language IS too strong - especially in this setting - so I do apologize for that comment and I especially apologize to any IW members that were offended by that remark.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: I consider refering homosexuality as sinful or as a perversion, thereby refering to homosexuals as sinners or perverts, as like "hate" speech and I wish you would not repeat it here in these forums as it is antagonistic and creates hostility towards a group, of whom we have members here at IW, and thereby violate the rules. I doubt IWs gay membership appreciates it. I am personally distgusted by such language.

You are entitled to your opinion.

But you have a point about referring to homosexuality as a perversion. That language IS too strong - especially in this setting - so I do apologize for that comment and I especially apologize to any IW members that were offended by that remark. [/QUOTE]Thanks Cerek and I apologize to you for not taking this up via PM where, in retrospect, it would have been better handled. I feel bad because it seems like I called you out a bit harshly.

Perhaps if you framed your disagreement as simply "religious reasons" and elaborated to anyone curious via PM. Just a suggestion. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Thanks Cerek and I apologize to you for not taking this up via PM where, in retrospect, it would have been better handled. I feel bad because it seems like I called you out a bit harshly. Perhaps if you framed your disagreement as simply "religious reasons" and elaborated to anyone curious via PM. Just a suggestion. [img]smile.gif[/img]

No worries, Chewbacca. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I did get upset when I read your response the first time, but you were right and I deserved to be "called out in public" for the comments. In retrospect, I should have just said that Dr. Laura's show was opposed by the Gay Rights Movement because she spoke out against them based on her religious beliefs and should NOT have elaborated on exactly WHAT terms and labels she used.

You and I disagree on many issues, but your chastisement wasn't nearly as harsh as it could have been. After I read over it a couple of times, I realized you were right and I had posted comments that could have been very hurtful to many of our members here.

The bottom line is that I was wrong and deserved to be "called out" for that post.

[Grojlach]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but here's an interesting statistic regarding the preservation of marriage. Apparently, Massachusetts - the Evil Liberal State - has the lowest divorce rate in the country. What's more, 9 out of the top 10 states with the lowest divorce rates are blue states, while 10 out of the lowest 10 are red states. For a full list of the statistics, check these.


Walking the walk on family values

By William V. D'Antonio | October 31, 2004

PRESIDENT Bush and Vice President Cheney make reference to "Massachusetts liberals" as if they were referring to people with some kind of disease. I decided it was time to do some research on these people, and here is what I found.

The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while the rate for Texas was 4.1.

But don't take the US government's word for it. Take a look at the findings from the George Barna Research Group. George Barna, a born-again Christian whose company is in Ventura, Calif., found that Massachusetts does indeed have the lowest divorce rate among all 50 states. More disturbing was the finding that born-again Christians have among the highest divorce rates.

The Associated Press, using data supplied by the US Census Bureau, found that the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt. The AP report stated that "the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people." The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

How to explain these differences? The following factors provide a partial answer:

* More couples in the South enter their first marriage at a younger age.

* Average household incomes are lower in the South.

* Southern states have a lower percentage of Roman Catholics, "a denomination that does not recognize divorce." Barna's study showed that 21 percent of Catholics had been divorced, compared with 29 percent of Baptists.

* Education. Massachusetts has about the highest rate of education in the country, with 85 percent completing high school. For Texas the rate is 76 percent. One third of Massachusetts residents have completed college, compared with 23 percent of Texans, and the other Northeast states are right behind Massachusetts.

The liberals from Massachusetts have long prided themselves on their emphasis on education, and it has paid off: People who stay in school longer get married at a later age, when they are more mature, are more likely to secure a better job, and job income increases with each level of formal education. As a result, Massachusetts also leads in per capita and family income while births by teenagers, as a percent of total births, was 7.4 for Massachusetts and 16.1 for Texas.

The Northeast corridor, with Massachusetts as the hub, does have one of the highest levels of Catholics per state total. And it is also the case that these are among the states most strongly supportive of the Catholic Church's teaching on social justice issues such as minimum and living wages and universal healthcare.

For all the Bible Belt talk about family values, it is the people from Kerry's home state, along with their neighbors in the Northeast corridor, who live these values. Indeed, it is the "blue" states, led led by Massachusetts and Connecticut, that have been willing to invest more money over time to foster the reality of what it means to leave no children behind. And they have been among the nation's leaders in promoting a living wage as their goal in public employment. The money they have invested in their future is known more popularly as taxes; these so-called liberal people see that money is their investment to help insure a compassionate, humane society. Family values are much more likely to be found in the states mistakenly called out-of-the-mainstream liberal. By their behavior you can know them as the true conservatives. They are showing how to conserve family life through the way they live their family values. William V. D'Antonio is professor emeritus at University of Connecticut and a visiting research professor at Catholic University in Washington, D.C.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...family_values/

[Djinn Raffo]

Kind of blows the whole moral values argument out of the water eh?

[Jonas Strider]

glad i voted for the liberals but alas, they lost.

[Link]

Originally posted by Cerek:Thanks for the stats, J.D. This the point I've been trying to make throughout this thread - that it wasn't just the Republicans and their "moral mammys" that voted in favor of the amendments. Each of these amendments passed by an overwhelming majority - which means that Democrats had to vote for it too and probably even some NON-religious voters cast their vote in favor of banning the marriages.

Doesn't this say a lot about the American idea of the 'political spectrum' and how far political ideas are apart? I mean; during the campaign both parties act as if they're fire and water, two exact opposites, but in the end the ideas of Republicans and Democrats don't differ that much after all.

[Timber Loftis]

Oh God Groj, divorce rates as moral values? Are you trying to drag Henry VIII into this?

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Oh God Groj, divorce rates as moral values? Are you trying to drag Henry VIII into this?

Errrm...it was actually Djinn Raffo that equated divorce rates with moral values. Grojlach and his article correctly correlated divorce rates with family values (or an apparant lack thereof).

Grojlach - As for the article itself, I thought it made some very good points. I agree that the fact more northerner tend to seek higher education and (thus) wait longer to get married is one important factor keeping the divorce rate lower. I concur that - the older you are, the more mature you are (generally speaking ) and that those who get married later in life tend to STAY married to the same person.

Then again, a good friend of mine pointed out that it takes TWO people to get married, but only takes ONE person to get a divorce. That doesn't necessarily mean the other partner wanted the divorce or was unwilling to try to make the marriage work.

I also agree that the predominance of Roman Catholics in the North play a much larger role in the lower divorce rates. I don't know what the Southern Baptist Association's "official stance" on divorce is, but I've not been in a single Baptist church that didn't have at least a few members who were in their 2nd (and sometimes 3rd) marriage. My own pastor preached a message AGAINST divorce about a year ago - which was pretty brave, IMHO - since we have several members that have been divorced and re-married.

The article is also correct that people in the South tend to get married much sooner after high school - and that those marriages seldom last. Getting married that young was the norm in my parents generation. Few people in this area could even afford to go to college after high school back in the 1950's....so the men either joined the military or got a job and the women especially looked for a job and husband shortly after graduation. However, for my generation, I can honostly say I don't know of a single couple that got married during (or shortly after) high school that stayed married. I do know TWO couples that actually started dating in high school (one couple has been together since the 9th grade [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] ) and eventually got married - but both of these couples waited at least a couple of years before getting married and both of them are still together.

The couple that started dating in the 9th grade got married during junior year in college (IIRC) and the wife was pregnant with their first child during the Finals Week of her last Senior semester. They made it through that, but I don't doubt that she STILL wishes they had timed that a little better.

[Timber Loftis]

Regarding the whole "seeking education and waiting to get married" thing, I did that and will likely - from all appearances thus far - have a long and happy marriage. However, this was not the first time I lived with a woman, I had a prior girlfriend for years. In yesteryear, it would have been my "starter marriage." Yet, it falls off the radar when considering polls like this.

And, Cerek, how dare you take my joke about King Henry as anything serious at all. You know I make no sense sometimes. [img]tongue.gif[/img]