 |
 |
I cannot understand why people want to expand the incidence of marriage. A social contract, yes, but marriage has connotations of religion - the word carries history with it, a 'sacrament' just yesterday. I believe marriage should be banished to the history books and those that want such a 'sacrament' or religious blessing should simply go to a church after their social contract has been drawn up and sworn. And as for it being 'until death us do part' - poppycock! It should be in ten or five year contracts, renewable only if both parties agree. Make Love - Not Marriage! Andrew On 10 May 2012 23:42, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > It is. There is nothing inherently better in its being the 21st century > > L > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 17:40, Douglas Barbour wrote: > > Bullyboy we understand here, too, Jill & Sheila. But at least in Canada > > we have mariage equality & that probably cannot be revoked. Ah, but the > > attacks on the weakest? Growing,... growing.... > > > > I had thought this was the 21st century... > > > > > > Doug > > On 2012-05-09, at 6:57 PM, Jill Jones wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks Sheila. I didn't know all those names. There isn't much 'civil' > >> left in public life here. Robust I don't mind but here it veers from > >> bullyboy to tackarama to spin preen. > >> > >> Groundwork, people, ideas. Not much for publicity hounds there, but > >> it's the work that has to be done, as one can do it. I try not to feel > >> defeated - it's hard, and I feel so tired within the daily round. It's > >> good to know of glimmers. > >> > >> Here's to the work, whatever it may be! > >> > >> > >> J > >> > >> > >> On 10/05/2012, at 10:16 AM, Sheila Murphy wrote: > >> > >> > >>> You said it. Politics here ain't pretty,and seems less-than-civil > >>> most of the time. There are some true stars, though: Elizabeth Warren, > >>> Bernie > >>> Sanders, and Al Franken, to name a few. > >>> > >>> > >>> Much of the time, there's no standing up for causes or neediest of > >>> people. > >>> > >>> Individuals with developmental disabilities (adults) in our state get > >>> no money for oral healthcare. Can you imagine? I did a study on this > >>> recently, and am utterly amazed. > >>> > >>> I retain hope. I keep trying to build ideas, and of course this isn't > >>> for the faint of heart (which many people feel themselves to be of > >>> late)> > >>> > >>> We'll get there! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Jill Jones <[log in to unmask]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> yes, sheila, interesting to see what politics pans outta that, and > >>>> now … you have any ideas? i haven't been much following anything. > >>>> i's fatigued with all the meeja hype (that activity that once was > >>>> directed to news reporting, of a sort), here and elsewhere > >>>> > >>>> J > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 10/05/2012, at 9:52 AM, Sheila Murphy wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Jill, and look at our little deal over here. The President has > >>>>> come on board now. Why now? Hmmm. Let's see . . . > >>>>> > >> > > > > Douglas Barbour > > [log in to unmask] > > > > http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/ > > http://eclecticruckus.wordpress.com/ > > > > > > Latest books: > > Continuations & Continuations 2 (with Sheila E Murphy) > > http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=962 > > Wednesdays' > > > http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10 > > .html > > > > > > The postliterate sensibility is offended by anything that isn’t > > television, views with suspicion the compound sentence, the subordinate > > clause, words of more than three syllables. The home and studio audiences > > become accustomed to hearing voices swept clean of improvised literary > > devices, downsized into data points, degraded into industrial-waste > > product. > > > > Lewis Lapham > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > Lawrence Upton > Visiting Fellow, Music Dept, > Goldsmiths, University of London > New Cross, London SE14 6NW > ---- > -- Andrew http://hispirits.blogspot.com/