Mitch Evans stated on another thread:
“Unfortunate, but true. There are no easy answers to to the question of divorce, either, but that’s another topic for another time…”
So I figured, let’s make this another time. Sure there’s an easy answer for the question of divorce. There’s always an easy answer for everything; that’s why they’re so attractive.
The easy answer for divorce is the same answer for gay marriage: ban it. Make it illegal. You want a divorce? Not in our country, Sunny Jim. Save the children. Save the family. Ban divorce.
So many people claim that being opposed to gay marriage has nothing, no NOTHING to do with the same type of prejudice that once prohibited marriage between blacks and whites or Jew and Catholic. Heavens no. It has to do with concern over saving marriage itself, even though not one shred of evidence has been produced indicating that gay marriage would somehow threaten straight marriage.
There’s the simple answer, then. Ban divorce. Put it on the voting referendums of every single state that banned gay marriage, watch it go down and flames, and expose them for the screaming hypocrites that they are.
Anybody else have simple answers they’d care to float about for difficult problems? War? Poverty? Terrorism?
PAD
• 
I love it. (Ban Divorce proceedings)
To bad it will never see the light of day. Just consider this akin to the scientist that invents the hydrogen powered engine…he and his idea will die faster than you can say J.R. Ewing.
The Lone Gunman has spoken.
Regards:
Warren S. Jones III
Anybody else have simple answers they’d care to float about for difficult problems? War? Poverty? Terrorism?
War – Ban it.
Poverty – Ban it.
Terrorism – Ban it.
Et voila! It is all solved.
There was actually an article in last week’s Chicago Sun Times asking whether “Gay Marriage” is the new “Divorce” in terms of it being a sin in the church.
Here’s the link to it: http://www.suntimes.com/output/falsani/cst-nws-fals25.html
Personally, I feel if all those people who are against gays being being able to marry because they truly believed it “destroys the sanctity of marriage”, they too should start speaking out against divorce. A marriage, regardless of the couple, is about 2 joining their hearts a 1. Divorce is about ripping those hearts out.
Now which one is it that destroys again….?
Worked for the New York homeless…
Isn’t this what we would refer to as a “modest proposal”? I mean, shouldn’t we just eat the gays and divorcees? “Solve global starvation – Have a Queer n’ Beer!” anyone care to suck one down with me?
All kidding aside, my state, Oregon, has voted to ban gay marriage. My response…isn’t this a matter of the separation of church and state? Marriage is a legal union recognized by the government because of paperwork you fill out with the state/county in which you wed. It is not recognized because of the church in which you get married. No church should be forced to marry anyone who does not mesh with their religious doctrine. gay marriage does not force this. it only forces states to give the same recognition, rights, and responsibilites to all its citizens. what could bbe wrong with that?
It’s not like we live in a society where people can be held for years on end without bail, acces to lawyers, or be charged with a crime. What kind of society would that be? definately not a society that would be in favor of the rights of its citizens. glad we don’t live there!
Got a simple answer for lousy comic book sales?
PAD,
There is no doubt that divorce is a much greater threat to marriage than allowing “gay marriage.” But to take your suggestion seriously, you would have to then ask the following questions:
1.) Do you allow divorce if one partner is violent and/or abusive to the spouse and/or kids?
2.) Do you allow divorce if a partner is consistently unfaithful sexually?
3.) If divorce is allowed in such limited cases, how do you protect the rights of those being harmed (most of the time, women)? How do you not make it so burdensome to prove that you condemn someone to a violent and abusive situation, or to monetary ruin if they try to leave?
From a moral standpoint, your point is sound. But your solution is not really a solution at all.
On the other hand, some very effective strategies HAVE been used to dramatically reduce divorce. One strategy has been having the couple get pre-marital counseling before getting married. Whether with a “secular” counselor or a religious counselor, pre-marital counseling greatly reduces the number of divorces.
Your point is valid that those who oppose gay marriage should also seek for the reduction (and hopefully the eliminiation) of divorce. But to suggest we must vote to end all divorces to be consistent is to set up a false dichotomy.
Iowa Jim
I propose instant road-side executions for anyone driving slow in the fast lanes. I mean really, anyone doing 40 on a freeway through a major urban center with no traffic holding them up deserves to be thinned from the herd. Force them off and cap ’em.
Is that simple enough?
Let’s see, what else? Oh, yes. Bring back public flogging. For who? Those stupid imbeciles who go into a convenience store and try to pay for a candy bar with a 50 or 100 dollar bill. If you’re that dumb that you can’t ask the bank for twenties, maybe a cat o’ nine tails will imprint that lesson onto your memory. And if your so vain that you need to show off by flashing large bills around, we can beat the vanity out of you.
Simple, eh?
As for war, we just put those plastic dividers they use at supermarket checkouts along national borders. “Sorry, but you can’t play. This is the twelve WMD’s or less line.”
Poverty? Make me rich. One less poor person.
Terrorism? Hmm… That’s a toughie, but I know the solution involves Carrot Top and the pre-neurotic Alanis Morrissette (or the pre-Playboy Debbie Gibson). How all that works I’m not sure.
Howabout just banning no-fault divorce? You make a binding commitment, you see it through unless there is a COMPELLING reason not to (infidelity, abuse, abandonment).
For the record, I’d say all my church-going friends are more concerned about divorce than gay marriage for the reasons already stated: it rips out hearts and destroys families.
Another topic: if we’re going to claim separation of church and state, let’s go all the way: No welfare or state aid (alms are the realm of the church, not the government, where accountability can be expected) – it would reduce taxes, too. Gotta love that.
Personally, I feel if all those people who are against gays being being able to marry because they truly believed it “destroys the sanctity of marriage”, they too should start speaking out against divorce.
Um, from what I’ve seen, the people speaking out against gay marriage ARE the people who’ve been speaking out against the prevalence of divorce. For decades.
I can semi-agree with Jim for a change…
Ban divorce and watch Spousal Abuse, Spousal Murder, child abuse, people “snapping” and shooting up home/work/7-11/etc thousands of time more commonplace and everyday.
Divorce isn’t a problem.
Marriage is NOT sacred.
As far as the government is concerned, marriage is merely a legal contract that grants different Income Tax status, certain legal entanglements (work-provided benfits such as health care for spouses), and some decision rights when one partner is incapacitated. (Although some morons want to keep feeding tubes in vegetables that are accomplishing nothing but milking the victim’s insurance/familiy for millions in medical bills when the spouse recognizes it’s time to pull the plug.)
When a couple wants a divorce, then that legal status is ended, and the for the government’s purposes (taxes, rights), they are single again.
There is NOTHING complicated about this.
Some non-existant and totally incompetent god-figure has NOTHING to do with marriage.
There is no reason to “protect” marriage, no reason to make divorce difficult.
Anybody else have simple answers they’d care to float about for difficult problems? War? Poverty? Terrorism?
I say, we take off and nuke the site from orbit.
Its the only way to be sure.
PAD,
These people are full of shite. It’s not about saving marriage or whatever. It’s about their opposition to being gay .. period. They don’t come out and say it but that’s what it is. With the divorce rate as it is.. with no fault divorce.. I don’t see how they can say saving marriage with a straight face. It’s all about the line in Leviticus that they use too much.. ” man shall not lay with man as he lays with woman ” but if you ask them about not eating kosher as it’s an abomination to God.. they shrug it off because these hypocrites absolved themselves of that part of Leviticus in the book of Matthew. They pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow. It boils down to one section of the population being intolerant and mean to another section because of organized religion based on a book written by man for man to have power over the hearts and minds of man. bah.
“They pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow. “
Ðámņ right Ben, but then again, what religion doesn’t do this?
Maybe this comes from growing up in a “broken home” and still turning out relatively okay (and marrying a divorcee for that matter), but why is divorce considered to be “a problem?” Two people who decide they don’t want to be together anymore break it off rather than spend the rest of their lives making each other miserable. This is a bad thing?
And don’t give me that “for the children” stuff – most kids I know of who live in family environments where the parents should stay 100 miles away from each other would be more than happy to see their parents just divorce and get on with their lives. Mommy and Daddy fighting all the time can be far more painful than not seeing one parent or the other for days at a time.
That’s not to say parents shouldn’t at least try to work things out, but sometimes you just gotta let go.
“Your point is valid that those who oppose gay marriage should also seek for the reduction (and hopefully the eliminiation) of divorce. But to suggest we must vote to end all divorces to be consistent is to set up a false dichotomy.”
No, it’s really not. The dichotomy comes from hypocrites who are so concerned about gay marriage as a threat to marriage in general that they would ban it, but are NOT so concerned about divorce as a threat to marriage that they won’t ban it.
I know you oppose gay marriage, if for no other reason than that I support it, so therefore it’s guaranteed you’d oppose it. Just as you oppose a woman’s right to choose. But suddenly when it comes to divorce, you’re concerned about special circumstances. So if your opposition to gay marriage is truly based on concern over the sanctity of marriage in general, would you:
A) Support a woman’s right to choose where the conception was against the will of the mother.
B) Support banning divorce except in cases where one of the spouses or children is demonstrably in danger.
PAD
There is a very simple solution how to get rid of any divorce problem: Don`t get married in the first place.
Maybe instead of calling for a ban of divorce, people should simply stop getting married. Problem solved.
(I hope everybody understands that I am sarcastic here)
“I know you oppose gay marriage, if for no other reason than that I support it, so therefore it’s guaranteed you’d oppose it. Just as you oppose a woman’s right to choose.”
I’ve never seen anything from IowaJim that would indicate his worldview is shaped largely by the “What Would PAD NOT Do” philosophy. Can’t you give the guy credit for making his own choices, even if they don’t match your own?
RE: Suggestions for War
Not that I’d ever advocate it – since I and all the people I like live here – but I have this feeling that if America ever bombed the hëll out of itself somehow, that every other country around the world would just stop fighting and get along with each other. Either out of shock or spite or just some kind of weird intuition, but I just see it happening.
So you’re all with me in supporting the legalization of illegal drugs(or at least the decriminalization)?
Cause, y’know, the Drug War has worked about as well as Prohibition did.
And nobody’s in prison because of divorce.
I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but:
“A) Support a woman’s right to choose where the conception was against the will of the mother.”
By this do you mean rape, or just that the parents don’t want to take responsibility for their actions? If rape: by the time a trial is held, the pregnancy is too far along. Either way, no.
B) Support banning divorce except in cases where one of the spouses or children is demonstrably in danger.
If you include infidelity in that, then yes, I’d agree (infidelity exposes the spouse to potential life-threatening disease).
Two people “who fight all the time” need to act like responsible adults and seek help. It called taking responsibility for your own actions. 🙂
Dammit Bill, as much as I hate Iowa Jim and his beliefs, you went and defended him before I could on PAD’s claim or why Jim feels the way he does…
Coyote,
I’ve been on that bandwagon for years (and this from a guy who has never used nor is interested in using drugs)…
Robbnn,
Abortion is between the woman and the man (well, ultimately it IS the woman’s body), so her right to choose abortion is rather ABSOLUTE.
Just get rid of “Marriage” altogether. Just adopt the legal construct of “Civil Unions” and the marriage problem is solved. Why should couples be forced to legally stay together (via a ban in divorce)? Both parties agree to dissolve the Union, and the contract is over.
I think the main problem with many couples that divorce is that they don’t get to know each other by living together first. This is only my opinion, but it’s an opinion that comes from someone that lived with his wife before marrying her. I lived with my wife and got to know her for 4 years before we tied the knot. You want you know something? It worked, and everyday with her gets better and better. We have similar interests and never have had a fight. We compensate for one another. When one of us has a moment of crisis, the other provides the strength. I feel that if a person gets to know the person they want to make a commitment to by living with them for a period first, they can reduce the chances of a messy divorce if it doesn’t work out.
JHL
I’ve never seen anything from IowaJim that would indicate his worldview is shaped largely by the “What Would PAD NOT Do” philosophy. Can’t you give the guy credit for making his own choices, even if they don’t match your own?
Gotta second this one, PAD. There are certainly a few folks around here who seem to go for knee-jerk opposition to most of what you say, but I’ve never seen Jim as one of ’em.
TWL
Bladestar,
You’re forgetting the children in each instance. THAT makes the difference.
Stats say, IIRC, that the divorce rate is higher for those who lived together first, not lower.
Another topic: if we’re going to claim separation of church and state, let’s go all the way: No welfare or state aid (alms are the realm of the church, not the government, where accountability can be expected) – it would reduce taxes, too. Gotta love that.
Um … huh? Since when is welfare the *exclusive* provenance of the church? Does that mean impoverished atheists are simply SOL?
This just strikes me as more of a bizarre non sequitur than an actual change of subject.
“A) Support a woman’s right to choose where the conception was against the will of the mother.”
By this do you mean rape, or just that the parents don’t want to take responsibility for their actions? If rape: by the time a trial is held, the pregnancy is too far along. Either way, no.
Jesus.
You wouldn’t even support abortion in the case of rape?
I’m sorry, Robbnn — but that’s not supporting the fetus, that’s dámņìņg the woman involved.
Let’s even take this further. What if the pregnancy is putting the woman’s life at risk, so that it’s literally her life or the fetus’s? Are you willing to at least consider abortion THEN?
B) Support banning divorce except in cases where one of the spouses or children is demonstrably in danger.
If you include infidelity in that, then yes, I’d agree (infidelity exposes the spouse to potential life-threatening disease).
Love it. So rape is not “at risk” in terms of abortion, but simple infidelity is “at risk” in terms of allowing divorce.
Man, oh, man … there are some worldviews I simply Do Not Get.
Two people “who fight all the time” need to act like responsible adults and seek help. It called taking responsibility for your own actions. 🙂
And if after seeking that help, it becomes clear that the relationship is simply a non-starter?
People change, Robbnn. My folks split up when I was 11. Initially, I couldn’t understand how they could do that. Now, quite honestly, I’m much more surprised that they managed to stay together for 17 years in the first place. The divorce resulted in a significant improvement in the quality of life for pretty much all people involved, at least over the long term.
Why exactly is that something you feel should be denied people?
ECoyote:
So you’re all with me in supporting the legalization of illegal drugs(or at least the decriminalization)?
Count me in. Decriminalize ’em and regulate the heck out of ’em. (Most of them, anyway.)
TWL
You’re forgetting the children in each instance. THAT makes the difference.
So you’re okay if childless couples divorce, then? Just checking.
TWL
“I’ve never seen anything from IowaJim that would indicate his worldview is shaped largely by the “What Would PAD NOT Do” philosophy. Can’t you give the guy credit for making his own choices, even if they don’t match your own?”
No, you’re assuming cause and effect where I didn’t intend any. When I say I know he opposes gay marriage because I support it, I make that statement not based upon “I said black therefore he feels compelled to say white.” I say that because Jim and I are historically 180 degrees apart on virtually everything. If I believe strongly in something, I know that he’s going to come down on the other side simply because his beliefs are diametrically opposed to mine on just about everything. My beliefs are an easy guide to Jim’s, because whatever I believe when it comes to anything remotely controversial–sex, politics, religion, anything–I just KNOW he believes the opposite. It’s just a given.
PAD
I know you oppose gay marriage, if for no other reason than that I support it, so therefore it’s guaranteed you’d oppose it.
Sorry, I was brainwashed at an early age so I can’t use you as an excuse for my wild and wacky views.
Just as you oppose a woman’s right to choose. But suddenly when it comes to divorce, you’re concerned about special circumstances.
Actually, I was asking you this question, not stating my view. I personally would favor and would vote for a change to no-fault divorce. I am able to comprehend that sometimes two rights conflict. Protecting the woman (or man) does come before protecting the marriage.
So if your opposition to gay marriage is truly based on concern over the sanctity of marriage in general, would you:
A) Support a woman’s right to choose where the conception was against the will of the mother.
No, because the issue is a woman bearing a child for 9 months versus taking an innocent life. I realize that this is a huge burden and life changing event for the woman, but it is a life ending event if you abort a child. You can’t compare the two. No matter what happens, if she is pregnant, she will be forever changed, whether she gives birth or has an abortion. So there is no “winning” solution to this tragic problem. (That said, this is not a perfect world, and I could live with this as a compromise to abortion on demand.)
On the other hand, if the mother’s life is in danger, then abortion is self defense and should be allowed.
B) Support banning divorce except in cases where one of the spouses or children is demonstrably in danger.
Yes, although determining the danger to a spouse or child would be hard. I would err on the side of protecting the spouse rather than making her (or him) have the sometimes impossible situation of proving the abuse.
Iowa Jim
My beliefs are an easy guide to Jim’s, because whatever I believe when it comes to anything remotely controversial–sex, politics, religion, anything–I just KNOW he believes the opposite. It’s just a given.
Fair enough if you are talking about politics and belief systems. I suspect you are right that our presuppositions and core beliefs are almost (but not quite) 180 degrees different. But when you get to whether truth, love, hope, etc. are important, then we would agree. But as is often said, the devil is in the details. How we apply some common shared principles will differ.
The reality is, if we were truly 180 degrees different on absolutely everything, I would not enjoy your books as much as I do. (Not trying to kiss up, just stating the facts.) I could respect your skill as a writer, but I would not enjoy your writings (including on this site) as much as I do. Even how you analyze TV shows demonstrates to me that we share some common ideas.
Bottom line, I do not come to this site for the fun of opposing your viewpoint but because I often enjoy your work.
Iowa Jim
Peter David: “Anybody else have simple answers they’d care to float about for difficult problems?”
Hi Peter,
I have an easy answer for alot of problems. I’ve been saying it for years: Bring back the Duel.
In fact, let’s get Divorce Court (feeble attempt to stay on topic) off the air and put a dueling show in it’s place. No, screw that. Let’s replace Survivor.
Really, there would be many advantages to bringing back the duel. Especially on T.V. It would free up court time, we’d only have to listen to one self-important ášš in the post show interview, the Parents Television Council could have something else to gripe about (AKA free advertisement)… The list could go on for quite a while.
Ok, I admit that I just want Judge Judy to have more free time to make appearances on sitcoms.
But, in all seriousness, Peter, you’ve pointed out some interesting correlations between the opposition to gay marriage and the opposition to marriages between blacks and whites, Catholics and Jews, etc… It seems to me to be the same mindset that eliminates the 13th floor from tall buildings.
On the subject of divorce I just want to say this: I believe that many divorces/bad marriages could be avoided by the advent of a reset button. When pushed, the reset button wipes away any delusions about living happily ever after. Take away the fairy tale notions that we’re peppered with in love songs and movies and maybe more of us would be prepared to accept that marriage takes work and resposibility to be successful.
Don’t mind me. I’ve just seen many marriages in which the participants behave as though they’ve finished the ‘work’ part and they no longer have to try.
Bladestar: “Just get rid of “Marriage” altogether.”
I agree. After all, marriage IS the leading cause of divorce.
(Tongue firmly gamma-welded to cheek)
PAD:
I have a better question. Why not simply do away with marriage al together, beyond just making it the province of the church or private ceremonies?
After all, marriage is simply a form of legalized discrimination of any and all single people any way. Children have other laws to protect them as far as getting support from their parents. Illegitimacy is a product of a bygone era.
Why is a spouse’s testimony any more damaging than any other intimate pairing? And companies shouldn’t care who you sleeping with beyond giving out benefits, which a person can should designate.
So really, what purpose does marriage even serve anymore?
Robbn:
>You’re forgetting the children in each instance. THAT makes the difference.
This is a seemingly straight forward response, but I’ve worked with several kids that prayed for their parents’ divorce simply due to the extreme turmoil that was ongoing during an unhappy, unsalvagable (in other words, neither parent unwilling or unable to make the compromises needed.) marriage.
Fred
Forget about making divorce illegal, I say make it manditory.
Think of it as a job contract. You wouldn’t sign a job contract that forbids you from ever leaving said job or company, you would want some thing that is re-negotiatable every few years. So every, say seven years, a divorce would be manditory and if the couple wants to re-marry that’s their choice.
I don’t really believe this, it just seems as feasable and ridiculous as some of the other propositions I’ve read in this thread.
Maybe it’s just because I’m not christian, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with divorce. Why would I want someone living in a loveless mariage? That seems to be a cruel and unusual punishment, something outlawed by the constitution.
In other matters, I say we give the poor people the rich peoples moeny, To stop war we should just stop fighting people, and terror, well that’s a hard one, I say we just call it something else, like happiness. How many terrorists do you think will stop because they don’t want to cause an act of “happiness” on this country?
Forget about making divorce illegal, I say make it mandatory.
Think of it as a job contract. You wouldn’t sign a job contract that forbids you from ever leaving said job or company, you would want some thing that is re-negotiatable every few years. So every, say seven years, a divorce would be mandatory and if the couple wants to re-marry that’s their choice.
Dave Sim, is that you?
When I say I know he opposes gay marriage because I support it, I make that statement not based upon “I said black therefore he feels compelled to say white.” I say that because Jim and I are historically 180 degrees apart on virtually everything.
Ok, that makes sense. I thought that sounded uncharacteristically harsh coming from you.
War :make it so that each country’s designated leaders have to duke out on their own.Ðìçk cheney
vs Kim Il jung ,Bush vs Saddam,osama,etc.Of course Bush will probably end up looking like Barry “I never used steroids “Bonds to give himself an advantage.
Lawsuits :Amendment against being stupid(bear with me)If you decide to trim hedges with a lawnmower or imitate something you see on Fear Factor or the WWE your stupid ,dont pass go ,dont collect 200 dollars get out of my court room.This only applies to adults.
Gay marriage,abortion,etc:You know if its so bad the only people who will ultimately suffer are the ones participating,they aint hurting you move
on. Legalize it.BTW for all the antiabortion folks,hows about you adopt a kid from one of the people who you are barring from preventing an unwanted child being born????
Divorce:And this kinda solves the gay marriage thing to,abolish the ritual of marriage.If you are truly in love the ceremony doesnt make it more so.For your own protection go into a legally binding contract with the person ,power of attorney etc,but the whole “sacred ritual” thing is the problem not divorce.
Drugs:You could do as much drugs as you want but only in designated facilities and you sign a waiver so that any an all damage done to your body is on you and any medical expenses that come from it are on you.
Im sure there are more solutions to the worlds problems ,but i must go now.
Simple Solutions for:
War-Act Spineless like the UN when it comes to diplomacy.
Poverty-Lower prices, lower taxes for the middle and lower classes, raise taxes for the upper class. If lobbyists or legislative opponents get in your way, mention IRS audit.
Terrorism-Tell France and Russia that either they get rid of the black markets that provide terrorists with weapon otherwise we’ll do it, and we’ll not be nice about it. (either that or mention IRS audit.)
I’ve had this idea, too, as a way to help preserve marriage. I’m now preferring the idea of, not banning divorce, but making it prohibitively expensive. If you get divorced, rather than splitting your posessions, you have to give them all up. You want a fresh start? You got it. The posessions are sold off, and the money goes towards allaying the taxes of couples that are still married. Would Newt have divorced his wife if it cost him everything? No, that family would have been preserved.
As long as we’re tossing out all of our ideas, I’ve thought long and hard about the whole drug issue. I’ve seen the effects of drugs on family, friends and students and I’ve also seen the tremendous amount of resources wasted in what seems to be a hopeless attempt to control the trade. So, a modest proposal, but one that I’m semi serious about.
People of legal age could register as drug users. They would be given a supply of cheap, clean drugs but would, in exchange, have to give up certain rights. In effect they are choosing a form of slavery so they should not have the right to vote, bear arms, serve in the military or public sector and, obviously, certain other jobs would be off limits (air traffic controller, laser eye surgeon, that sort of thing).
Public housing could be set up for those who get so hooked that they can’t function, nice places set away from the other members of society. Cable TV and cheap but nutritious food. Pretty high turnover rate, if you get my drift (but there are worse ways to go than an accidental heroin OD).
(obviously, I’m not including pot here, this is for coke, heroine, crystal meth, and whatever new yummies the boys in the lab cook up).
Downside–lot’s of people would sign up for this, effectively returning us to pre-civil war status of a nation part free, part slave. At least this time the slavery would be chosen. Lots of sad stories about husbands, wives, children, siblings, etc, lost to the government camps.
Upside–cheaper than the war on drugs, the freeing up of law enforcement to pursue everything else, crippling the cartels, cleaning up the streets.
I’m not big on the “anything has to be better than what we have now” philosophy but I’m willing to try something new on this one. What we have now just doesn’t seem to be working on any level that I can see.
// body else have simple answers they’d care to float about for difficult problems? War? Poverty? Terrorism? //
War: I’m reminded of an old episode of Taxi where someone (I think it was Tony Danza’s character), suggested that world leaders should just get in the ring and go ten rounds. Think of how much easier this would be, wouldn’t need a draft because you wouldn’t need an army. All the money that goes into defence could go for better causes, (education, health care, ect). Elections would be more interesting, no one would care about what a canidate said in a debate, they would just care about which one of those guys could beat up the others.
Provery: Kill any person making under a certain amount a year. This would fix a few things, not only would it get rid of poverty but it would solve the population problem and the minimum wage would have to go up as companies would realize that all the people who did the minimum wage jobs are suddenly dead. Sweatshops would also disappear over night.
Terrorism: Any Terrorist threat should be responded to with full nuclear weapons. This includes domestic terrorism, some gun nut blows up a federal building because he doesn’t want to pay taxes and we have to blow ourselves up.
Note to the humor impared: Chill out!!!
// Got a simple answer for lousy comic book sales?
//
Years ago I was at a Neal Gaiman reading where he was asked a question very simular to this, his answer was something along the lines of “Do better comics”.
I think the main problem with many couples that divorce is that they don’t get to know each other by living together first.
Oh, that’ll send the religious folks into a farking tizzy.
Yeah, when my father’s mother-in-law and his church’s pastor (at a Methodist church) talked to my future wife and I about where we lived, we knew the šhìŧ would hit the fan if we told them we were living together and not yet married.
That said, obviously, I don’t care if people live together before marriage or not. Hëll, I knew one couple that refused to marry because they were both divorcees, and saw no need for the term ‘marriage’.
I have a better question. Why not simply do away with marriage al together, beyond just making it the province of the church or private ceremonies?
What the hëll would the point of that be? A church isn’t required as it is for a marriage, so why should my marriage, conducted in a private ceremony, become something less than it is because some god-fearing twits can’t stand to see two people of the same sex be happy?
Civil unions? Gimme a break. Marriage of another name.
Marriage is already outside the church. The problem is that stupid religious are DICTATING what marriage should be to our government.
And that is bûllšhìŧ.
“My opponent, Lisa, says there are no easy answers! I say … She’s NOT LOOKING HARD ENOUGH!”–‘Candidate, Bart Simpson’, THE SIMPSONS.
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. Peter, you forgot banning trolls, bad weather, no-nothing book critics and general all-round no-goodness.
// After all, marriage is simply a form of legalized discrimination of any and all single people any way. ///
Bill Maher has been making this point for years, and the older I get, (and the more single I stay) the more I agree with him. Especially in the workplace where being single makes one a second class citizen in a lot of really subtle ways.
Hey Bill ,I like your drug proposal better than mine.My idea was kinda close but yours was much more definitive.
First, I’d like to know how many straight married folks will divorce if gay marriage becomes legalized. It’s a “defense of marriage” like banning minorities from a country club is a “defense of golf.” Denying a minority group the rights enjoyed by the majority is discrimination; it’s only defending and perpetuating discrimination.
Incidentally, here’s a question for all those people against gay marriage: Do you support extramarital homosexual sex? If it’s not homophobia but only a defense of heterosexual marriage, then you should have no problem with gay folks enjoying themselves physically. Unless, you know, this whole marriage thing is only the first step in making homosexuality illegal and restricting it legally as much as possible.
Bill Mulligan said in his suggestion of licensing drugs, “Upside–cheaper than the war on drugs, the freeing up of law enforcement to pursue everything else, crippling the cartels, cleaning up the streets.”
Bill, I believe that shutting down the enforcement of the War on Drugs altogether wouldn’t be cheaper than running it…because all the War on Drugs is one of the few Federal programs that’s actually operating at a profit. Losing all that confiscated equipment and money means that it costs money to just stop worring about it…at least directly. That doesn’t take the tragically overcrowded prison system into account.
My modest proposal for a solution to all problems that afflict humanity: Exterminate all human life. No humans means no human problems. Simple.
More seriously, to (mis)quote Steven Brust, real problems are always complicated. Simple things may be unfortunate, but they’re not problems.