I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
This is what happens when there's 276 different impact assessments required to do anything. Junk it all and implement a "strategic importance" override in legislation that allows parliament to push through any and all projects with a simple majority in the house, overriding any objections or negative impact assessments.
Infrastructure in this country is just a boondoggle for consultants who need to write these various impact assessments.
Yep. The same goes for energy policy. I'm always going on about the unglamorous topic of Waste From Energy plants (incinerators) which are renewable due to biomass - it's crazy that we don't burn our own eligible waste, we send it to Holland where they burn 120% of their eligible waste (all theirs and some others). Turns out when JRM was Energy Secretary he tried to do just this, but planning got in the way. Every time someone tries to build one you get objections (Tory MPs foremost amongst them) from idiots thinking they'll all grow three arms.
To be fair, there has long been a problem with incinerators in this country not being maintained well enough and run at a high enough temperature. The classic bullshit squeezing costs, combined with terrible enforcement.
If you go over the pollution limits in the Netherlands, they drop a bridge on you. Complete shutdown for remediation until you can prove it is fixed. So people don’t mind the incinerators…
I don't understand why the incinerators wouldn't want to run at the highest possible temperature, but I am happy to learn more. And yes, in exchange for these things being plonked on the community, there absolutely needs to be guarantees on emissions.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
You rather suggest that China isn't pulling its weight on moving to renewables. But they have turned an area in the Gobi desert the size of Belgium into a wind farm:
China is worried about its energy position in the event of a world war, not about saving the planet.
Chinese agriculture is a lot more vulnerable to global warming than American agriculture.
This is the main reason Britain should also be concerned about global warming. As a food-importing country we are vulnerable to the world falling into food deficit.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
I think you should stick to psephological rather than matrimonial matters. You would make a rubbish marriage guidance counsellor.
My father made my mother's life miserable for 56 years until her death. No violence ( so your leaving criteria is not met) but classic narcissism. I suspect she stayed for my benefit. If I'd had my days over again I would have advised her to leave and find the happiness she deserved.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
Who is nonetheless married now with many children and grandchildren and with a Vice President who was also elected who has only ever been married once and has 3 children with his wife.
Both Trump and Vance campaigned to cut abortions, against wokeism and to support the traditional family
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
HYUFDs views on family values are as cherrypicked as his views on religion.
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
This is what happens when there's 276 different impact assessments required to do anything. Junk it all and implement a "strategic importance" override in legislation that allows parliament to push through any and all projects with a simple majority in the house, overriding any objections or negative impact assessments.
Infrastructure in this country is just a boondoggle for consultants who need to write these various impact assessments.
Yep. The same goes for energy policy. I'm always going on about the unglamorous topic of Waste From Energy plants (incinerators) which are renewable due to biomass - it's crazy that we don't burn our own eligible waste, we send it to Holland where they burn 120% of their eligible waste (all theirs and some others). Turns out when JRM was Energy Secretary he tried to do just this, but planning got in the way. Every time someone tries to build one you get objections (Tory MPs foremost amongst them) from idiots thinking they'll all grow three arms.
To be fair, there has long been a problem with incinerators in this country not being maintained well enough and run at a high enough temperature. The classic bullshit squeezing costs, combined with terrible enforcement.
If you go over the pollution limits in the Netherlands, they drop a bridge on you. Complete shutdown for remediation until you can prove it is fixed. So people don’t mind the incinerators…
I don't understand why the incinerators wouldn't want to run at the highest possible temperature, but I am happy to learn more. And yes, in exchange for these things being plonked on the community, there absolutely needs to be guarantees on emissions.
Higher temperatures are more expensive.
Is there any more a reason required?
I mean more of a technical explanation. A higher temperature to me would indicate more power output in a shorter time so would seem more cost efficient.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
They generally don't become loveless, just couples don't work through their problems enough and expect marriage to be a perfect utopia all the time which it isn't, it requires effort from both partners
When the husband is thumping the wife or vice versa that doesn't look salvageable to me. Best to move along. If the spouse is getting thumped it's highly likely so are the kids.
If you had read my previous posts I gave adultery of a spouse or domestic violence as the 2 completely acceptable grounds for divorce
But a lack of love and constant arguments you reject as one.
If people are arguing all the time and don't love each other we shouldn't require things to turn violent before it can be terminated.
Arguments are not a ground for divorce in my view, no couple on earth doesn't ever argue, it is not a grounds to break marriage vows
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
They generally don't become loveless, just couples don't work through their problems enough and expect marriage to be a perfect utopia all the time which it isn't, it requires effort from both partners
When the husband is thumping the wife or vice versa that doesn't look salvageable to me. Best to move along. If the spouse is getting thumped it's highly likely so are the kids.
If you had read my previous posts I gave adultery of a spouse or domestic violence as the 2 completely acceptable grounds for divorce
But once you allow for adultery as a grounds for divorce, it's trivially easy for anyone to engineer grounds for divorce. Probably easier now than in the 1950s, because we all have video cameras on our phones.
Why not just cut to the chase?
See also assisted dying. Unless the UK government is prepared to stop people buying one-way tickets to Switzerland, where is the potency in our current laws?
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
They generally don't become loveless, just couples don't work through their problems enough and expect marriage to be a perfect utopia all the time which it isn't, it requires effort from both partners
When the husband is thumping the wife or vice versa that doesn't look salvageable to me. Best to move along. If the spouse is getting thumped it's highly likely so are the kids.
If you had read my previous posts I gave adultery of a spouse or domestic violence as the 2 completely acceptable grounds for divorce
But a lack of love and constant arguments you reject as one.
If people are arguing all the time and don't love each other we shouldn't require things to turn violent before it can be terminated.
Arguments are not a ground for divorce in my view, no couple on earth doesn't ever argue, it is not a grounds to break marriage vows
You're really painting yourself into an extreme corner there.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
Who is nonetheless married now with many children and grandchildren and with a Vice President who was also elected who has only ever been married once and has 3 children with his wife.
Both Trump and Vance campaigned to cut abortions, against wokeism and to support the traditional family
Trump very specifically didn't campaign on cutting abortions actually. He went out of his way to say multiple times he didn't support a federal abortion ban and that it was up to the states and people to decide for themselves.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
They generally don't become loveless, just couples don't work through their problems enough and expect marriage to be a perfect utopia all the time which it isn't, it requires effort from both partners
When the husband is thumping the wife or vice versa that doesn't look salvageable to me. Best to move along. If the spouse is getting thumped it's highly likely so are the kids.
If you had read my previous posts I gave adultery of a spouse or domestic violence as the 2 completely acceptable grounds for divorce
But a lack of love and constant arguments you reject as one.
If people are arguing all the time and don't love each other we shouldn't require things to turn violent before it can be terminated.
Arguments are not a ground for divorce in my view, no couple on earth doesn't ever argue, it is not a grounds to break marriage vows
There is a difference between arguing now and then, while loving each other in-between, and arguing constantly with no love there.
Thank goodness the world rejects your quite frankly hateful views, that want to force people to live in loveless marriages.
Most of it is all the same stuff that is his hobby horse...but there is an interesting nugget in there. He talks about Ben Warner, who was the data cruncher, has a start-up for synthetic focus group polling via LLMs.
I have many questions ;-)
Given that McDonalds wasted $1bn on AI telling it that people wanted bacon ice cream I dread to think what a LLM / "synthetic" focus group would recommend to people.
I find it really strange that people don't grasp that until you can 100% confirm the results an AI gives you are not hallucinations you can't trust the end result...
I find quite a lot of the academic work looking at this very unsatisfactory. Just testing against synthetic benchmarks or finding exploits / edge cases isn't really moving towards the goal you suggest.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
You rather suggest that China isn't pulling its weight on moving to renewables. But they have turned an area in the Gobi desert the size of Belgium into a wind farm:
China is worried about its energy position in the event of a world war, not about saving the planet.
Chinese agriculture is a lot more vulnerable to global warming than American agriculture.
This is the main reason Britain should also be concerned about global warming. As a food-importing country we are vulnerable to the world falling into food deficit.
The only sane way to address that risk is to focus on securing our supply of food in any eventuality, not bankrupting ourselves in the hope that we can save the world.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
I think the payments to help other countries adapt to climate change are potentially important. Not least because that while there are other threats to us, it is over climate change that we are the boiling frog.
I would put a few strings on it though:
1) clear audit trails to ensure the money is well spent 2) acceptance of payments requires that country to facilitate deportations of illegals in the UK. 3) compliance with our wider foreign policy, such as trade access and for sanctions on Russia etc
No, we do nothing and pull up the drawbridge. We're an island nation with low carbon emissions and we've already given up a huge part of our industry to do that. Asking the British taxpayer to fund other nations to do the same is fundamentally unfair when China is exempt. We need to spend our money on developing technologies to combat climate change not in subsidies/cash payments to corrupt countries in Africa.
You rather suggest that China isn't pulling its weight on moving to renewables. But they have turned an area in the Gobi desert the size of Belgium into a wind farm:
China is worried about its energy position in the event of a world war, not about saving the planet.
Chinese agriculture is a lot more vulnerable to global warming than American agriculture.
This is the main reason Britain should also be concerned about global warming. As a food-importing country we are vulnerable to the world falling into food deficit.
The only sane way to address that risk is to focus on securing our supply of food in any eventuality, not bankrupting ourselves in the hope that we can save the world.
Best way to secure our food supply is to diversify it and keep ourselves economically strong so we can outbid other countries on the world market.
That way eg localised flooding that harms a UK harvest doesn't affect our food supply.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
They generally don't become loveless, just couples don't work through their problems enough and expect marriage to be a perfect utopia all the time which it isn't, it requires effort from both partners
When the husband is thumping the wife or vice versa that doesn't look salvageable to me. Best to move along. If the spouse is getting thumped it's highly likely so are the kids.
If you had read my previous posts I gave adultery of a spouse or domestic violence as the 2 completely acceptable grounds for divorce
But a lack of love and constant arguments you reject as one.
If people are arguing all the time and don't love each other we shouldn't require things to turn violent before it can be terminated.
Arguments are not a ground for divorce in my view, no couple on earth doesn't ever argue, it is not a grounds to break marriage vows
And Sunil thus spake unto his PB Disciples, "Know ye that The Lord God never married the mother of His only begotten son."
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Corbyn yes. Livingstone less so, see how he jumped into the bear trap about setting up ones income in most tax efficient manner when running against Boris (and also has as messy a personal life as Boris).
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
They generally don't become loveless, just couples don't work through their problems enough and expect marriage to be a perfect utopia all the time which it isn't, it requires effort from both partners
When the husband is thumping the wife or vice versa that doesn't look salvageable to me. Best to move along. If the spouse is getting thumped it's highly likely so are the kids.
If you had read my previous posts I gave adultery of a spouse or domestic violence as the 2 completely acceptable grounds for divorce
But a lack of love and constant arguments you reject as one.
If people are arguing all the time and don't love each other we shouldn't require things to turn violent before it can be terminated.
Arguments are not a ground for divorce in my view, no couple on earth doesn't ever argue, it is not a grounds to break marriage vows
If I was married to you they would be very high on my agenda for divorce !!!!
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I agree that a strong family life is important. But not if that family life is corrosive, as it all too often is. It is the only way to live, and that people cannot be happy, thriving and good members of society as single parents, or divorced.
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
The ultra woke, uber feminists however just hate the whole concept of the traditional family as a concept. Now Vance may have been criticised for his 'childless cat ladies' comments and saying not enough women are producing children in a traditional family but in the privacy of the ballot box more Americans voted for him and Trump than woke childless Harris and Walz.
The rise of Meloni to power in Italy, pushing more funding and support for mothers is similarly the start of a backlash against the woke anti family agenda
I probably know more "ultra woke, uber feminists" than you. You'd probably classify Mrs J as one.
But I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up. It's male dinosaurs such as yourself that feed wokeism and feminism, by treating women and others as inferior for *reasons*. And I hate to tell you this; things are not perfect now; but they were far worse in the past that you seem to revere.
"not enough women are producing children in a traditional family"
That's because, for many men, a "traditional family" subjugates women. And from your comments, I guess you have the same view. Too many men see a "traditional family" as being one where they are in control. I think the successful families, then and now, are ones where control is shared. But some women, and many, many men, are not ready for that.
(And Walz was not childless?)
I'm not convinced that a "traditional family" is at all traditional.
When did it become common, requiring a society where one partner could support a family for most couples?
1920s? 1950s? I think we are subjected to much humbug on this question.
A similar question could be when did the teenager suddenly spring into existence, and is the teenager a marketing construct imposed to create a new customer category?
I think even "traditional marriage" is a distinctly modern invention. Did it exist pre-Reformation, or pre-'Enlightenment'?
1860s, generally.
Traditional family units, as you call them, go back a lot further - they were a staple of peasant societies. But, of course, it was expected everyone in them would work (including the children as soon as they were able to walk any distance).
As for teenagers, they are in mass terms a phenomenon of the 1950s. Before that, it was comparatively unusual for men, in particular, to start work late enough to be able to mess around, and if they didn't start work they had no money. That said of course those with money and leisure tended to mess around just as much as today - the Bright Young Things of the 1920s, or George IV spring to mind.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
He has already agreed it and accepted the communique
Hasn't everyone? These things almost always end with some sort of agreement.
Not everyone by some distance
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
But their reps were and their countries have signed the communique, I believe?
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
Starmer needs to explain where our share is coming from
And all the others don't?
That is a matter for them, and just deflecting from the very real question - how do we pay our share ?
Sure. Let's get it in the spreadsheet. But let's give him a chance to catch his breath. The way people are talking it's like they expected him to make a big stand, SKS against the world, and refuse to sign the thing.
Anyone who commits the UK to an annual share of 300 billion dollars needs to explain how much our share is and how it is paid
How others deal with it is not the concern of UK taxpayers
Since we have agreed that if others don't pay their share that we will make up the difference (and Trump has already said the USA won't), then it absolutely is the concern of UK taxpayers.
Starmer isn't just signing us up to pay the UK's share, but to contribute to America's share too.
This is why 2029 can't come soon enough, we have to get out of these stupid agreements and if I'm being honest having a Tory/Reform coalition strikes me as the best way to drag the country to the right and dump all of this nonsense about climate payments, reparations and pissing endless billions up the NHS wall. I don't think the Tories have it within them to do it alone, Reform are going to have to force them into it kicking and screaming.
It could work like the LibDem/Tory coalition but in reverse. Instead of the Lib Dems giving cover for Cameron to do all the liberal things that his party would otherwise have opposed, Reform can give the Tories cover to do the opposite.
Indeed, that's the theory. The state needs serious changes and we need to think very hard about who our friends overseas. Similar to @Casino_Royale I think we need to seriously look at increasing defence spending and doing to in tandem with other European countries who can be relied upon yo take the fight to our enemies when necessary.
A Tory government in a properly right wing party in the coalition will force us to face up to a lot of realities of where we are as a country and our role in the world. We can't be cash piñata for poor countries who want to shake us down using the lefty liberal white guilt as a weapon to do so, we need to be ready to stand up to our enemies and to have very tough deportation measures for illegal immigrants. I don't see the Tories having anywhere near enough cojones to do any of these things beyond a bit of window dressing.
Just so I'm clear, you would be happy to pay additional taxes to fund additional defence expenditure though as we don't so hypothecated taxation you'd have to rely on the Government to put the money where it says it will.
The Conservatives don't at the moment support raising taxes - perhaps, as a supporter or member, you shouyld ask how they would fund extra defence spending without tax rises?
There are precisely no votes in promising higher defence spending, until we are on the brink of an actual war. Hence the Tories will make the right noises but promise nothing, and (like Labour) worry about where the money’s coming from as and when the problem arises.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
Who is nonetheless married now with many children and grandchildren and with a Vice President who was also elected who has only ever been married once and has 3 children with his wife.
Both Trump and Vance campaigned to cut abortions, against wokeism and to support the traditional family
So a technical marriage where the woman allegedly lives as man and wife with her long term partner whilst the husband allegedly fools around with whatever hooker or barking mad would-be Stepford Wife fancies their chances is fine?
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
This is what happens when there's 276 different impact assessments required to do anything. Junk it all and implement a "strategic importance" override in legislation that allows parliament to push through any and all projects with a simple majority in the house, overriding any objections or negative impact assessments.
Infrastructure in this country is just a boondoggle for consultants who need to write these various impact assessments.
Yep. The same goes for energy policy. I'm always going on about the unglamorous topic of Waste From Energy plants (incinerators) which are renewable due to biomass - it's crazy that we don't burn our own eligible waste, we send it to Holland where they burn 120% of their eligible waste (all theirs and some others). Turns out when JRM was Energy Secretary he tried to do just this, but planning got in the way. Every time someone tries to build one you get objections (Tory MPs foremost amongst them) from idiots thinking they'll all grow three arms.
To be fair, there has long been a problem with incinerators in this country not being maintained well enough and run at a high enough temperature. The classic bullshit squeezing costs, combined with terrible enforcement.
If you go over the pollution limits in the Netherlands, they drop a bridge on you. Complete shutdown for remediation until you can prove it is fixed. So people don’t mind the incinerators…
I don't understand why the incinerators wouldn't want to run at the highest possible temperature, but I am happy to learn more. And yes, in exchange for these things being plonked on the community, there absolutely needs to be guarantees on emissions.
Higher temperatures are more expensive.
Is there any more a reason required?
Since running incinerators at lower temperatures is highly problematic, in terms of kicking out dioxins, yes.
If they are running below temperature we should drop not just a bridge but an entire transport system on them.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
It's an argument that is contemptible. A position that sacrifices the happiness of the people for the supposed benefit of the people is incoherent and flawed, at best. "You must suffer for your own good" is not an argument that has much traction with me, I'm afraid, and your lack of compassion for those in difficult situations is not compatible with what I was always told was the true core of Christianity.
A God who is bigoted, lacks any compassion, and requires coercion is not one I would recognise nor would ever consider worthy of worship. Fortunately I know Christians who believe in a God of peace, love, tolerance, and compassion and I can respect them.
You, if you had your way, would have required the State force me, my sisters, and my mother into an unpleasant life (Actually, taken to its conclusion, I would never exist and Mum and my eldest sister would have lived their lives in fear. Mum certainly would never have had more children, which rather contravenes your espoused purpose in this in the first place). It would not be a noble outcome, it would not be beneficial for anyone involved, and it wouldn't have achieved anything good.
And, in any case, you have long lost your argument, and the country does not bow to that argument's unpleasant attempta to judicially compel something that can only grow organically.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Jacob Rees Mogg certainly lives by his values, married to only one woman and never divorced, lots of children.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
For his day he bloody well was.
Overturning the money tables and the whole eye of the needle thing. Wanting to feed the hungry, help the poor, heal the sick.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
Feeding the 5,000 was an act of pure, unadulterated Socialism...
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
The evidence suggests that religiosity and immorality are likely correlated.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
For his day he bloody well was.
Overturning the money tables and the whole eye of the needle thing. Wanting to feed the hungry, help the poor, heal the sick.
He was incredibly woke for his era.
Yes but was his take on trans women in women's sports ;-)
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
Who is nonetheless married now with many children and grandchildren and with a Vice President who was also elected who has only ever been married once and has 3 children with his wife.
Both Trump and Vance campaigned to cut abortions, against wokeism and to support the traditional family
So a technical marriage where the woman allegedly lives as man and wife with her long term partner whilst the husband allegedly fools around with whatever hooker or barking mad would-be Stepford Wife fancies their chances is fine?
Trump and traditional family in the same sentence is bizarre
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
Who is nonetheless married now with many children and grandchildren and with a Vice President who was also elected who has only ever been married once and has 3 children with his wife.
Both Trump and Vance campaigned to cut abortions, against wokeism and to support the traditional family
Trump very specifically didn't campaign on cutting abortions actually. He went out of his way to say multiple times he didn't support a federal abortion ban and that it was up to the states and people to decide for themselves.
Of course he did, he used the judges he appointed's repeal of Roe v Wade to appeal to evangelicals and in Florida Trump voted against a measure to protect abortion rights https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy547v72nd4o
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
Opinions may vary...
Trump probably considers them to be 'alternative facts'.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
No, he just told a rich man that he should sell all he had and give it to the poor.
Part of the elegance of Christianity is that, whenever you think you have a handle on it and are doing it right, something comes along out of leftfield to point out that you have barely begun.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
How do you know? Goatee beard, long hair, sandals- he looks like a right-on lefty to me.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
Matthew 5:3-10:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19 16-24
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Mark 11:15-19
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,
‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” 18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him, for they were afraid of him because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. 19 And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples[a] went out of the city.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
They generally don't become loveless, just couples don't work through their problems enough and expect marriage to be a perfect utopia all the time which it isn't, it requires effort from both partners
When the husband is thumping the wife or vice versa that doesn't look salvageable to me. Best to move along. If the spouse is getting thumped it's highly likely so are the kids.
If you had read my previous posts I gave adultery of a spouse or domestic violence as the 2 completely acceptable grounds for divorce
But a lack of love and constant arguments you reject as one.
If people are arguing all the time and don't love each other we shouldn't require things to turn violent before it can be terminated.
Arguments are not a ground for divorce in my view, no couple on earth doesn't ever argue, it is not a grounds to break marriage vows
You're really painting yourself into an extreme corner there.
Anything which isn't uber liberal is seen by most PBers as extreme, indeed most American voters would be considered extreme on here given the majority of PB posters expected a comfortable Harris win over Trump
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
They generally don't become loveless, just couples don't work through their problems enough and expect marriage to be a perfect utopia all the time which it isn't, it requires effort from both partners
When the husband is thumping the wife or vice versa that doesn't look salvageable to me. Best to move along. If the spouse is getting thumped it's highly likely so are the kids.
If you had read my previous posts I gave adultery of a spouse or domestic violence as the 2 completely acceptable grounds for divorce
But a lack of love and constant arguments you reject as one.
If people are arguing all the time and don't love each other we shouldn't require things to turn violent before it can be terminated.
Arguments are not a ground for divorce in my view, no couple on earth doesn't ever argue, it is not a grounds to break marriage vows
You're really painting yourself into an extreme corner there.
Anything which isn't uber liberal is seen by most PBers as extreme, indeed most American voters would be considered extreme on here given the majority of PB posters expected a comfortable Harris win over Trump
Anything as modern as the 1950s onwards you class as uberliberal.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
How do you know? Goatee beard, long hair, sandals- he looks like a right-on lefty to me.
A vicar once told me off for wearing sandals to church.
I said if they were good enough for Jesus they ought to be good enough for her church.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
How do you know? Goatee beard, long hair, sandals- he looks like a right-on lefty to me.
A vicar once told me off for wearing sandals to church.
I said if they were good enough for Jesus they ought to be good enough for her church.
Since when have Church leaders ever cared about Jesus though.
If the teachings of the Church had more to do with Jesus and less to do with Paul, I'd have a lot more respect for it.
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
This is what happens when there's 276 different impact assessments required to do anything. Junk it all and implement a "strategic importance" override in legislation that allows parliament to push through any and all projects with a simple majority in the house, overriding any objections or negative impact assessments.
Infrastructure in this country is just a boondoggle for consultants who need to write these various impact assessments.
Yep. The same goes for energy policy. I'm always going on about the unglamorous topic of Waste From Energy plants (incinerators) which are renewable due to biomass - it's crazy that we don't burn our own eligible waste, we send it to Holland where they burn 120% of their eligible waste (all theirs and some others). Turns out when JRM was Energy Secretary he tried to do just this, but planning got in the way. Every time someone tries to build one you get objections (Tory MPs foremost amongst them) from idiots thinking they'll all grow three arms.
To be fair, there has long been a problem with incinerators in this country not being maintained well enough and run at a high enough temperature. The classic bullshit squeezing costs, combined with terrible enforcement.
If you go over the pollution limits in the Netherlands, they drop a bridge on you. Complete shutdown for remediation until you can prove it is fixed. So people don’t mind the incinerators…
I don't understand why the incinerators wouldn't want to run at the highest possible temperature, but I am happy to learn more. And yes, in exchange for these things being plonked on the community, there absolutely needs to be guarantees on emissions.
Cost - higher temperatures cost more to run, both in maintenance and other stuff.
The problem in the UK has been the response to breaches in standards. A stiff letter, which gets ignored. Instead of instant shutdown.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
How do you know? Goatee beard, long hair, sandals- he looks like a right-on lefty to me.
A vicar once told me off for wearing sandals to church.
I said if they were good enough for Jesus they ought to be good enough for her church.
Since when have Church leaders ever cared about Jesus though.
If the teachings of the Church had more to do with Jesus and less to do with Paul, I'd have a lot more respect for it.
Well, the interesting hypothetical is, if Jesus turned up in sandals He wouldn't have been let in.
A preacher from Westboro Street Baptist Church died, and was met at the Pearly Gates by Saint Peter. He's told he's going to have an audience with God, and is delighted at the news.
St Peter hustles him through towards the Throne, but just before he gets there, he stops and says: 'There's just one thing I should tell you about God, as it often surprises people from your church.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
How do you know? Goatee beard, long hair, sandals- he looks like a right-on lefty to me.
A vicar once told me off for wearing sandals to church.
I said if they were good enough for Jesus they ought to be good enough for her church.
Since when have Church leaders ever cared about Jesus though.
If the teachings of the Church had more to do with Jesus and less to do with Paul, I'd have a lot more respect for it.
If the C of E fully followed the teachings of Paul like the Roman Catholic church does it would not regularly remarry divorcees and would not have women priests and bishops and of course it now has prayers in services for same sex couples (albeit even the Pope is considering that without full same sex marriage in churches)
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
Can you be a communist and a liberal?
A lot of Corbynistas basically are economic communists but social woke liberals
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I agree that a strong family life is important. But not if that family life is corrosive, as it all too often is. It is the only way to live, and that people cannot be happy, thriving and good members of society as single parents, or divorced.
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
The ultra woke, uber feminists however just hate the whole concept of the traditional family as a concept. Now Vance may have been criticised for his 'childless cat ladies' comments and saying not enough women are producing children in a traditional family but in the privacy of the ballot box more Americans voted for him and Trump than woke childless Harris and Walz.
The rise of Meloni to power in Italy, pushing more funding and support for mothers is similarly the start of a backlash against the woke anti family agenda
I probably know more "ultra woke, uber feminists" than you. You'd probably classify Mrs J as one.
But I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up. It's male dinosaurs such as yourself that feed wokeism and feminism, by treating women and others as inferior for *reasons*. And I hate to tell you this; things are not perfect now; but they were far worse in the past that you seem to revere.
"not enough women are producing children in a traditional family"
That's because, for many men, a "traditional family" subjugates women. And from your comments, I guess you have the same view. Too many men see a "traditional family" as being one where they are in control. I think the successful families, then and now, are ones where control is shared. But some women, and many, many men, are not ready for that.
(And Walz was not childless?)
I'm not convinced that a "traditional family" is at all traditional.
When did it become common, requiring a society where one partner could support a family for most couples?
1920s? 1950s? I think we are subjected to much humbug on this question.
A similar question could be when did the teenager suddenly spring into existence, and is the teenager a marketing construct imposed to create a new customer category?
I think even "traditional marriage" is a distinctly modern invention. Did it exist pre-Reformation, or pre-'Enlightenment'?
1860s, generally.
Traditional family units, as you call them, go back a lot further - they were a staple of peasant societies. But, of course, it was expected everyone in them would work (including the children as soon as they were able to walk any distance).
As for teenagers, they are in mass terms a phenomenon of the 1950s. Before that, it was comparatively unusual for men, in particular, to start work late enough to be able to mess around, and if they didn't start work they had no money. That said of course those with money and leisure tended to mess around just as much as today - the Bright Young Things of the 1920s, or George IV spring to mind.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
How do you know? Goatee beard, long hair, sandals- he looks like a right-on lefty to me.
A vicar once told me off for wearing sandals to church.
I said if they were good enough for Jesus they ought to be good enough for her church.
Since when have Church leaders ever cared about Jesus though.
If the teachings of the Church had more to do with Jesus and less to do with Paul, I'd have a lot more respect for it.
If the C of E fully followed the teachings of Paul like the Roman Catholic church does it would not regularly remarry divorcees and would not have women priests and bishops and of course it now has prayers in services for same sex couples (albeit even the Pope is considering that without full same sex marriage in churches)
If the Catholic Church followed the teachings of Paul, it would allow priests to marry.*
Just saying...
*1 Corinthians 7:9, in case you don't know the reference. The irony is that it's 1 Corinthians 7:8 that's used to justify celibacy.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
Matthew 5:3-10:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19 16-24
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Mark 11:15-19
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,
‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” 18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him, for they were afraid of him because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. 19 And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples[a] went out of the city.
Jesus himself was a carpenter not a welfare claimant and most of his disciples were fishermen.
He praised shrewd investment in the parable of the talents and as Mrs Thatcher said if the Good Samaritan had had no wealth he would have been no use to the traveler he helped from the roadside
The Fellowship of the Believers 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Blooming communist apostles. Woke socialist St Peter, leading all of this
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
Matthew 5:3-10:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19 16-24
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Mark 11:15-19
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,
‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” 18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him, for they were afraid of him because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. 19 And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples[a] went out of the city.
Jesus himself was a carpenter not a welfare claimant and most of his disciples were fishermen.
He praised shrewd investment in the parable of the talents and as Mrs Thatcher said if the Good Samaritan had had no wealth he would have been no use to the traveler he helped from the roadside
You have completely misunderstood the point of both those parables.
The moral of the parable of the talents was that abilities should be used, not wasted. In fact, at the end it contained a condemnation of usury by saying it was only slightly better than burying stuff in the ground.
The point about the parable of the Good Samaritan was that we should use our wealth to help anyone in need.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
Feeding the 5,000 was an act of pure, unadulterated Socialism...
The first food bank.
Or food pantry, for those of Tories-at-prayer CofE sensibilities.
The Fellowship of the Believers 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Blooming communist apostles. Woke socialist St Peter, leading all of this
And look what they did to Ananias and his wife when they tried to keep some back.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
How do you know? Goatee beard, long hair, sandals- he looks like a right-on lefty to me.
A vicar once told me off for wearing sandals to church.
I said if they were good enough for Jesus they ought to be good enough for her church.
Since when have Church leaders ever cared about Jesus though.
If the teachings of the Church had more to do with Jesus and less to do with Paul, I'd have a lot more respect for it.
If the C of E fully followed the teachings of Paul like the Roman Catholic church does it would not regularly remarry divorcees and would not have women priests and bishops and of course it now has prayers in services for same sex couples (albeit even the Pope is considering that without full same sex marriage in churches)
If the Catholic Church followed the teachings of Paul, it would allow priests to marry.*
Just saying...
*1 Corinthians 7:9, in case you don't know the reference. The irony is that it's 1 Corinthians 7:8 that's used to justify celibacy.
Paul says those who can't control their passions should marry, RC priests are meant to be celibate and control their passions
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
How do you know? Goatee beard, long hair, sandals- he looks like a right-on lefty to me.
A vicar once told me off for wearing sandals to church.
I said if they were good enough for Jesus they ought to be good enough for her church.
Since when have Church leaders ever cared about Jesus though.
If the teachings of the Church had more to do with Jesus and less to do with Paul, I'd have a lot more respect for it.
If the C of E fully followed the teachings of Paul like the Roman Catholic church does it would not regularly remarry divorcees and would not have women priests and bishops and of course it now has prayers in services for same sex couples (albeit even the Pope is considering that without full same sex marriage in churches)
If the Catholic Church followed the teachings of Paul, it would allow priests to marry.*
Just saying...
*1 Corinthians 7:9, in case you don't know the reference. The irony is that it's 1 Corinthians 7:8 that's used to justify celibacy.
Paul says those who can't control their passions should marry, RC priests are meant to be celibate and control their passions
Meanwhile, back in the real world, most of them can't. So what then?
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
How do you know? Goatee beard, long hair, sandals- he looks like a right-on lefty to me.
A vicar once told me off for wearing sandals to church.
I said if they were good enough for Jesus they ought to be good enough for her church.
Since when have Church leaders ever cared about Jesus though.
If the teachings of the Church had more to do with Jesus and less to do with Paul, I'd have a lot more respect for it.
If the C of E fully followed the teachings of Paul like the Roman Catholic church does it would not regularly remarry divorcees and would not have women priests and bishops and of course it now has prayers in services for same sex couples (albeit even the Pope is considering that without full same sex marriage in churches)
If the Catholic Church followed the teachings of Paul, it would allow priests to marry.*
Just saying...
*1 Corinthians 7:9, in case you don't know the reference. The irony is that it's 1 Corinthians 7:8 that's used to justify celibacy.
I don't have much respect for Paul but 7:9 is more sensible than 7:8 and had it been listened to by the Church there could have been a lot less abuse.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
How do you know? Goatee beard, long hair, sandals- he looks like a right-on lefty to me.
A vicar once told me off for wearing sandals to church.
I said if they were good enough for Jesus they ought to be good enough for her church.
Since when have Church leaders ever cared about Jesus though.
If the teachings of the Church had more to do with Jesus and less to do with Paul, I'd have a lot more respect for it.
If the C of E fully followed the teachings of Paul like the Roman Catholic church does it would not regularly remarry divorcees and would not have women priests and bishops and of course it now has prayers in services for same sex couples (albeit even the Pope is considering that without full same sex marriage in churches)
If the Catholic Church followed the teachings of Paul, it would allow priests to marry.*
Just saying...
*1 Corinthians 7:9, in case you don't know the reference. The irony is that it's 1 Corinthians 7:8 that's used to justify celibacy.
I don't have much respect for Paul but 7:9 is more sensible than 7:8 and had it been listened to by the Church there could have been a lot less abuse.
Clerical celibacy is, of course, comparatively recent. It wasn't enforced at all at any level until the seventh century, only recommended rather than required until the eleventh century, slackly enforced until the fifteenth century, and only actually doctrine from the sixteenth century.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Jacob Rees Mogg certainly lives by his values, married to only one woman and never divorced, lots of children.
JD Vance I think largely does too
I thought your lot was meant to condemn Papists, not hold them up as paragons of virtue?
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Jacob Rees Mogg certainly lives by his values, married to only one woman and never divorced, lots of children.
JD Vance I think largely does too
I thought your lot was meant to condemn Papists, not hold them up as paragons of virtue?
Papists loyal to their King like JRM are acceptable
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
Matthew 5:3-10:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19 16-24
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Mark 11:15-19
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,
‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” 18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him, for they were afraid of him because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. 19 And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples[a] went out of the city.
Jesus himself was a carpenter not a welfare claimant and most of his disciples were fishermen.
He praised shrewd investment in the parable of the talents and as Mrs Thatcher said if the Good Samaritan had had no wealth he would have been no use to the traveler he helped from the roadside
Is the Good Samaritan more valued by Jesus than the Widow with her Mite because his wealth and therefore the value of his philanthropy was greater?
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
Feeding the 5,000 was an act of pure, unadulterated Socialism...
The first food bank.
Or food pantry, for those of Tories-at-prayer CofE sensibilities.
Yes feeding the 5000 was a great act of charity and the 3rd sector and big society not the welfare state in action
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
Matthew 5:3-10:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19 16-24
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Mark 11:15-19
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,
‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” 18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him, for they were afraid of him because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. 19 And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples[a] went out of the city.
Jesus himself was a carpenter not a welfare claimant and most of his disciples were fishermen.
He praised shrewd investment in the parable of the talents and as Mrs Thatcher said if the Good Samaritan had had no wealth he would have been no use to the traveler he helped from the roadside
Jesus was a Rabbi.
A bit of a radical, woke Rabbi, but a Rabbi, none the less.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
Matthew 5:3-10:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19 16-24
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Mark 11:15-19
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,
‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” 18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him, for they were afraid of him because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. 19 And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples[a] went out of the city.
Jesus himself was a carpenter not a welfare claimant and most of his disciples were fishermen.
He praised shrewd investment in the parable of the talents and as Mrs Thatcher said if the Good Samaritan had had no wealth he would have been no use to the traveler he helped from the roadside
You have completely misunderstood the point of both those parables.
The moral of the parable of the talents was that abilities should be used, not wasted. In fact, at the end it contained a condemnation of usury by saying it was only slightly better than burying stuff in the ground.
The point about the parable of the Good Samaritan was that we should use our wealth to help anyone in need.
And you have to create wealth in the first place to enable the wealthy to use it to help others
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
Can you be a communist and a liberal?
A lot of Corbynistas basically are economic communists but social woke liberals
Ah like Ash Sarkar. Ok yes.
But she's also a Tottenham fan. So it's an odd cocktail of views.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
How do you know? Goatee beard, long hair, sandals- he looks like a right-on lefty to me.
A vicar once told me off for wearing sandals to church.
I said if they were good enough for Jesus they ought to be good enough for her church.
Since when have Church leaders ever cared about Jesus though.
If the teachings of the Church had more to do with Jesus and less to do with Paul, I'd have a lot more respect for it.
If the C of E fully followed the teachings of Paul like the Roman Catholic church does it would not regularly remarry divorcees and would not have women priests and bishops and of course it now has prayers in services for same sex couples (albeit even the Pope is considering that without full same sex marriage in churches)
If the Catholic Church followed the teachings of Paul, it would allow priests to marry.*
Just saying...
*1 Corinthians 7:9, in case you don't know the reference. The irony is that it's 1 Corinthians 7:8 that's used to justify celibacy.
Paul says those who can't control their passions should marry, RC priests are meant to be celibate and control their passions
Meanwhile, back in the real world, most of them can't. So what then?
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Jacob Rees Mogg certainly lives by his values, married to only one woman and never divorced, lots of children.
JD Vance I think largely does too
I thought your lot was meant to condemn Papists, not hold them up as paragons of virtue?
Papists loyal to their King like JRM are acceptable
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Not that curious. There's a simple explanation.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Rubbish, Jesus was not a communist woke social liberal
For his day he bloody well was.
Overturning the money tables and the whole eye of the needle thing. Wanting to feed the hungry, help the poor, heal the sick.
He was incredibly woke for his era.
Wokeism is ultra pro LGBTQ+, pro division on race and sexuality lines with a particular rejection of white heterosexual male 'privilege' and uber feminist (albeit with some clash with them and the equally woke uber trans).
It is perfectly possible for big corporations to be very woke and many now are and for a poor man to be socially conservative and anti woke. Hence Harris won lots of executives from the former and Trump lots of the latter
My grandfather was a very angry disappointed man, who was prone to physical violence against his sons and wife. My grandmother stayed with him for the two boys. By the time I was born he was a doting grandfather, he then died when I was still very small, and I only found out about the full story much later. My father and his brother grew up to be wonderful men and good fathers. My grandmother would have been well within her rights to leave him, but possibly my Dad and his brother would not have turned out the way they did. They are both immensely thankful for the upbringing they had. I am not sure how much we can extrapolate from our own experiences. However, I think we should try to set aside the mores of our own time in forming conclusions. Society in 1950 placed a high value on duty and sticking it out, and a low value on an individual's wellbeing and mental health. Society today places zero value on duty and sticking things out, and values individual wellbeing above everything, especially for women or members of minority groups. Neither attitude necessarily has all the answers.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Jacob Rees Mogg certainly lives by his values, married to only one woman and never divorced, lots of children.
JD Vance I think largely does too
I thought your lot was meant to condemn Papists, not hold them up as paragons of virtue?
Papists loyal to their King like JRM are acceptable
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Jacob Rees Mogg certainly lives by his values, married to only one woman and never divorced, lots of children.
JD Vance I think largely does too
I thought your lot was meant to condemn Papists, not hold them up as paragons of virtue?
Papists loyal to their King like JRM are acceptable
What about us atheist republicans?
Absolutely not, you can stay with Labour or the Greens where you belong or if an uber anti woke, Brexit lover can join Reform
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Jacob Rees Mogg certainly lives by his values, married to only one woman and never divorced, lots of children.
JD Vance I think largely does too
I thought your lot was meant to condemn Papists, not hold them up as paragons of virtue?
Papists loyal to their King like JRM are acceptable
What about atheist republicans?
Trump is not acceptable, no.
Hang on, God saved him from being killed by an assassin, so he must be acceptable, Shirley?
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
This is what happens when there's 276 different impact assessments required to do anything. Junk it all and implement a "strategic importance" override in legislation that allows parliament to push through any and all projects with a simple majority in the house, overriding any objections or negative impact assessments.
Infrastructure in this country is just a boondoggle for consultants who need to write these various impact assessments.
Yep. The same goes for energy policy. I'm always going on about the unglamorous topic of Waste From Energy plants (incinerators) which are renewable due to biomass - it's crazy that we don't burn our own eligible waste, we send it to Holland where they burn 120% of their eligible waste (all theirs and some others). Turns out when JRM was Energy Secretary he tried to do just this, but planning got in the way. Every time someone tries to build one you get objections (Tory MPs foremost amongst them) from idiots thinking they'll all grow three arms.
To be fair, there has long been a problem with incinerators in this country not being maintained well enough and run at a high enough temperature. The classic bullshit squeezing costs, combined with terrible enforcement.
If you go over the pollution limits in the Netherlands, they drop a bridge on you. Complete shutdown for remediation until you can prove it is fixed. So people don’t mind the incinerators…
I don't understand why the incinerators wouldn't want to run at the highest possible temperature, but I am happy to learn more. And yes, in exchange for these things being plonked on the community, there absolutely needs to be guarantees on emissions.
"Two councils have agreed to pay out £93.5m over a waste treatment plant in Derby which has never been used."
AIUI, and to be fair to the NIMBYs, it was in the wrong place. At least, from what I've been told the site was far too small to be operated. It turns out that you need not just the plant, but storage.
Here's a timeline of it before construction started: •December 2009: Derby City Council rejects plans for the incinerator because of health and environmental fears •November 2010: The planning inspector turns down the scheme •July 2011: The High Court overturns this decision after an appeal by Resource Recovery Solutions •September 2012: A second public inquiry into the incinerator gives it the go-ahead •March 2013: Campaigners challenge the inspector's decision in the High Court but are unsuccessful •April 2013: Plans approved by city council •June 2014: City council agrees to pay compensation to developers •February 2023: report into the scandal kept secret because of 'commercial interests'. •July 2023: councils pay owners £93.5m •August 2024: councils look at restarting the project.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Jacob Rees Mogg certainly lives by his values, married to only one woman and never divorced, lots of children.
JD Vance I think largely does too
I thought your lot was meant to condemn Papists, not hold them up as paragons of virtue?
Papists loyal to their King like JRM are acceptable
What about us atheist republicans?
Absolutely not, you can stay with Labour or the Greens where you belong
If that's your attitude then you can stay in Opposition where you belong.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Jacob Rees Mogg certainly lives by his values, married to only one woman and never divorced, lots of children.
JD Vance I think largely does too
I thought your lot was meant to condemn Papists, not hold them up as paragons of virtue?
Papists loyal to their King like JRM are acceptable
Rapists loyal to the King like Trump not so much acceptable.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
"Sorry, kids, me and yer dad can't split up, even though we hate each other because some bloke called Jesus, who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, wouldn't like it and the government don't like it very much, either, so we'll just stay together and make your life a misery until you're old enough to leave home" That's right?
If you clearly hated each other you would never have married in the first place. Most kids want both their parents at home with them
1 - People change 2 - Sometimes, especially when young and full of hormones, we make bad decisions 3 - Information that wasn't known beforehand can come to light
Your stance rejects all of the above. My mother is twice divorced. Anathema to you. For her first marriage, she fell deeply in love. A year or two down the line, her husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had one daughter by then, but decided to divorce when, in the middle of an episode, he threatened the baby.
For her second marriage, she married "on the rebound." Partly because she was now used to being away from her over-controlling mother. She and my father had very different personalities - which they found out. Unfortunately, after the marriage. After several years of trying their best to make it work (and two children), they agreed to divorce.
To be honest, their divorce was the best thing they could have done for the children (me included). Rather than grow up in an air of mutual resentment and "making the best of it" through clenched teeth, we grew up in a home of love, learning, and laughter. Mum and Dad got on much better after the divorce and when they could live separately and when they didn't have to be in each other's business all the time. I actually think it was that which may have led to my sister and I both being in stable long-term marriages (her for 30 years+ at this point, me approaching 25 years). We didn't have the experience of the resentment we would doubtless have had in that alternate universe.
I reject entirely your didactic and unempathic stance.
Yes empathy is only uber liberalism, everyone else is evil and beyond the pale. Marriage, commitment of both parents to raising children, the nation's fertility rate, all irrelevant in comparison to the desires of the self first.
Well tough, I represent an argument millions agree with, especially the religious and don't give a shit whether you dislike me making it or not I will continue to do so
You represent an argument that was rejected 70 years ago and continues to be rejected since.
Far from it, Italy has recently elected a government with a more traditional view of women and the family, the US has also just elected a President and Congress with a more traditional view of the family.
The backlash against wokeism and uber liberalism has begun
Wrong.
America has just elected a twice divorced, repeatedly unfaithful adulterer as President.
Not a traditional view of the family.
And Giorgia Meloni has had a kid out of wedlock. Not exactly a bastion of religious morality.
One of the curiosities of right-populism is how many of its leaders don't reflect the values their rhetoric espouses. There's a definite lack of Corbyn/Livingstone like figures- even when their views were odd/wrong, they did sort of try to live by them.
Jacob Rees Mogg certainly lives by his values, married to only one woman and never divorced, lots of children.
JD Vance I think largely does too
I thought your lot was meant to condemn Papists, not hold them up as paragons of virtue?
Papists loyal to their King like JRM are acceptable
What about atheist republicans?
Trump is not acceptable, no.
Hang on, God saved him from being killed by an assassin, so he must be acceptable, Shirley?
Another example of a serious economic issue for the UK, for which a non partisan solution is desperately needed.
How long does it take to build a mile of tramway?
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a Birmingham is right now building a mile long extension to the West Midlands Metro, which will end up taking 13 years in total from the initial proposal to the first trams operating. More than six years were spent in the planning process. This isn’t atypical either, tram construction experts we’ve spoken to have said that schemes in the UK take more than a decade to get built.
Countries that build trams cheaper, tend to also approve and build them faster. Dijon, France built their 12 mile tramway network in just two years, after two years of planning. Dijon’s tramway cost just £38m per mile. Birmingham’s cost six times more at £233m per mile. ..
This is what happens when there's 276 different impact assessments required to do anything. Junk it all and implement a "strategic importance" override in legislation that allows parliament to push through any and all projects with a simple majority in the house, overriding any objections or negative impact assessments.
Infrastructure in this country is just a boondoggle for consultants who need to write these various impact assessments.
Yep. The same goes for energy policy. I'm always going on about the unglamorous topic of Waste From Energy plants (incinerators) which are renewable due to biomass - it's crazy that we don't burn our own eligible waste, we send it to Holland where they burn 120% of their eligible waste (all theirs and some others). Turns out when JRM was Energy Secretary he tried to do just this, but planning got in the way. Every time someone tries to build one you get objections (Tory MPs foremost amongst them) from idiots thinking they'll all grow three arms.
To be fair, there has long been a problem with incinerators in this country not being maintained well enough and run at a high enough temperature. The classic bullshit squeezing costs, combined with terrible enforcement.
If you go over the pollution limits in the Netherlands, they drop a bridge on you. Complete shutdown for remediation until you can prove it is fixed. So people don’t mind the incinerators…
I don't understand why the incinerators wouldn't want to run at the highest possible temperature, but I am happy to learn more. And yes, in exchange for these things being plonked on the community, there absolutely needs to be guarantees on emissions.
"Two councils have agreed to pay out £93.5m over a waste treatment plant in Derby which has never been used."
AIUI, and to be fair to the NIMBYs, it was in the wrong place. At least, from what I've been told the site was far too small to be operated. It turns out that you need not just the plant, but storage.
Here's a timeline of it before construction started: •December 2009: Derby City Council rejects plans for the incinerator because of health and environmental fears •November 2010: The planning inspector turns down the scheme •July 2011: The High Court overturns this decision after an appeal by Resource Recovery Solutions •September 2012: A second public inquiry into the incinerator gives it the go-ahead •March 2013: Campaigners challenge the inspector's decision in the High Court but are unsuccessful •April 2013: Plans approved by city council •June 2014: City council agrees to pay compensation to developers •February 2023: report into the scandal kept secret because of 'commercial interests'. •July 2023: councils pay owners £93.5m •August 2024: councils look at restarting the project.
IIRC, that was the one where someone actually said that they had eliminated the storage yard to go with the incinerator, because otherwise the project was “politically non-viable”
Getting tough on those that refuse to work is difficult problem (trying to properly assess those that can't from those that won't, particularly with the big increase in those diagnosed with various labels and mental health issues) and requires taking decisions that will bound to lead to terrible headlines. Thus, I believe it when I see it. Same as government efficiency drives. Every government talks about it, few achieve it.
On topic 'A group of 29 faith leaders have joined forces to oppose assisted dying in the biggest intervention from religious groups on the issue to date.
Senior figures representing Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs have warned that the assisted dying Bill will lead to people being pressured into ending their lives to avoid burdening families or the NHS. They say a change in law will turn a “right to die” into people thinking they have a “duty to die”.
In an open letter signed by the Bishop of London, the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi, they say they are “deeply concerned about the impact the Bill would have on the most vulnerable, opening up the possibility of life-threatening abuse and coercion”....Coming on the week that MPs vote on the controversial legislation, the letter says: “In the UK, it is estimated that 2.7 million older people have been subjected to abuse; many of these may also be vulnerable to pressure to end their lives prematurely“Disability campaigners and those working with women in abusive relationships have also highlighted the danger of unintended consequences should the law be changed.
“The experience of jurisdictions which have introduced similar legislation, such as Oregon and Canada, demonstrate how tragic these unintended consequences can be. Promised safeguards have not always protected the vulnerable and marginalised. Notably, the Bishop of London, the Right Rev Dame Sarah Mullally, signed for the Church of England – a move likely to spark speculation about her prospects as the next Archbishop of Canterbury.
She signed alongside Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, and Sir Ephraim Mirvis, the Chief Rabbi. Other signatories include Sayed Abdul Saheb al-Khoei, secretary general of the Al-Khoei Foundation, a prominent Muslim organisation; Zara Mohammed, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain; Bhai Sahib Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia, the chair of the Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha, one of the UK’s leading Sikh organisations; and Trupti Patel, the president of the Hindu Forum of Britain representing over 300 Hindu groups.' https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/11/24/assisted-dying-bill-religious-leaders-letter-duty-to-die/
The Opinium survey of over 10,000 people in the UK found that 75% were in favour of assisted dying so it would win in a referendum.
"The polling also found a strong majority for law change among religious people, with two-thirds (66%) of those who follow a religion stating their support, including 69% of Christians and 65% of Catholics."
Getting tough on those that refuse to work is difficult and requires taking decisions that will bound to lead to terrible headlines. Thus, I believe it when I see it.
The bigger problem in this country isn't people who don't work, it's people who work no more than 16 hours a week or they'll lose their benefits.
Which to be fair when the real tax rate they face is about 80% is entirely rational behaviour.
Sadly on that there was absolutely nothing in the Budget.
Getting tough on those that refuse to work is difficult and requires taking decisions that will bound to lead to terrible headlines. Thus, I believe it when I see it.
The bigger problem in this country isn't people who don't work, it's people who work no more than 16 hours a week or they'll lose their benefits.
Which to be fair when the real tax rate they face is about 80% is entirely rational behaviour.
Sadly on that there was absolutely nothing in the Budget.
Oh absolutely. All the cliff edges in the system need addressing, instead the government made it worse by lowering the threshold when NI kicks in. I can not get my head around how all the government can't see that this is so counter-productive.
Most of it is all the same stuff that is his hobby horse...but there is an interesting nugget in there. He talks about Ben Warner, who was the data cruncher, has a start-up for synthetic focus group polling via LLMs.
I have many questions ;-)
Given that McDonalds wasted $1bn on AI telling it that people wanted bacon ice cream I dread to think what a LLM / "synthetic" focus group would recommend to people.
I find it really strange that people don't grasp that until you can 100% confirm the results an AI gives you are not hallucinations you can't trust the end result...
It's not just AIs that are untrustworthy. So are people.
Until you can 100% confirm the results a person gives you are not bullshit, you can't trust the end result. I find it really strange that people don't grasp that. Maybe they do.
Comments
Is there any more a reason required?
This is the main reason Britain should also be concerned about global warming. As a food-importing country we are vulnerable to the world falling into food deficit.
My father made my mother's life miserable for 56 years until her death. No violence ( so your leaving criteria is not met) but classic narcissism. I suspect she stayed for my benefit. If I'd had my days over again I would have advised her to leave and find the happiness she deserved.
Both Trump and Vance campaigned to cut abortions, against wokeism and to support the traditional family
Why not just cut to the chase?
See also assisted dying. Unless the UK government is prepared to stop people buying one-way tickets to Switzerland, where is the potency in our current laws?
Thank goodness the world rejects your quite frankly hateful views, that want to force people to live in loveless marriages.
That way eg localised flooding that harms a UK harvest doesn't affect our food supply.
Traditional family units, as you call them, go back a lot further - they were a staple of peasant societies. But, of course, it was expected everyone in them would work (including the children as soon as they were able to walk any distance).
As for teenagers, they are in mass terms a phenomenon of the 1950s. Before that, it was comparatively unusual for men, in particular, to start work late enough to be able to mess around, and if they didn't start work they had no money. That said of course those with money and leisure tended to mess around just as much as today - the Bright Young Things of the 1920s, or George IV spring to mind.
Neither the leaders nor the voters give the slightest damn about Biblical values. HYUFD shows his contempt for the teaching of Jesus on a daily basis.
All they care about is cherrypicking elements they care about and then telling other people what they can and can't do.
Southampton 2 Liverpool 1
If they are running below temperature we should drop not just a bridge but an entire transport system on them.
A God who is bigoted, lacks any compassion, and requires coercion is not one I would recognise nor would ever consider worthy of worship. Fortunately I know Christians who believe in a God of peace, love, tolerance, and compassion and I can respect them.
You, if you had your way, would have required the State force me, my sisters, and my mother into an unpleasant life (Actually, taken to its conclusion, I would never exist and Mum and my eldest sister would have lived their lives in fear. Mum certainly would never have had more children, which rather contravenes your espoused purpose in this in the first place). It would not be a noble outcome, it would not be beneficial for anyone involved, and it wouldn't have achieved anything good.
And, in any case, you have long lost your argument, and the country does not bow to that argument's unpleasant attempta to judicially compel something that can only grow organically.
JD Vance I think largely does too
Overturning the money tables and the whole eye of the needle thing. Wanting to feed the hungry, help the poor, heal the sick.
He was incredibly woke for his era.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy547v72nd4o
Part of the elegance of Christianity is that, whenever you think you have a handle on it and are doing it right, something comes along out of leftfield to point out that you have barely begun.
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19 16-24
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Mark 11:15-19
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,
‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’?
But you have made it a den of robbers.”
18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him, for they were afraid of him because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. 19 And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples[a] went out of the city.
Actually the 1550s are liberal compared to you.
I said if they were good enough for Jesus they ought to be good enough for her church.
If the teachings of the Church had more to do with Jesus and less to do with Paul, I'd have a lot more respect for it.
The problem in the UK has been the response to breaches in standards. A stiff letter, which gets ignored. Instead of instant shutdown.
You could make a metaphor out of this...
A preacher from Westboro Street Baptist Church died, and was met at the Pearly Gates by Saint Peter. He's told he's going to have an audience with God, and is delighted at the news.
St Peter hustles him through towards the Throne, but just before he gets there, he stops and says: 'There's just one thing I should tell you about God, as it often surprises people from your church.
She's black.'
As portrayed by the documentary Happy Days.
Just saying...
*1 Corinthians 7:9, in case you don't know the reference. The irony is that it's 1 Corinthians 7:8 that's used to justify celibacy.
He praised shrewd investment in the parable of the talents and as Mrs Thatcher said if the Good Samaritan had had no wealth he would have been no use to the traveler he helped from the roadside
English Standard Version
The Fellowship of the Believers
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Blooming communist apostles. Woke socialist St Peter, leading all of this
The moral of the parable of the talents was that abilities should be used, not wasted. In fact, at the end it contained a condemnation of usury by saying it was only slightly better than burying stuff in the ground.
The point about the parable of the Good Samaritan was that we should use our wealth to help anyone in need.
Or food pantry, for those of Tories-at-prayer CofE sensibilities.
Paul's answer is clear.
A bit of a radical, woke Rabbi, but a Rabbi, none the less.
More stressful game than expected.
Casino of this Parish would call him woke
But she's also a Tottenham fan. So it's an odd cocktail of views.
Can forgive Salah going for the hat-trick rather than the pass in those circumstances.
8 point lead looming.
It is perfectly possible for big corporations to be very woke and many now are and for a poor man to be socially conservative and anti woke. Hence Harris won lots of executives from the former and Trump lots of the latter
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-66332074
"Two councils have agreed to pay out £93.5m over a waste treatment plant in Derby which has never been used."
AIUI, and to be fair to the NIMBYs, it was in the wrong place. At least, from what I've been told the site was far too small to be operated. It turns out that you need not just the plant, but storage.
Here's a timeline of it before construction started:
•December 2009: Derby City Council rejects plans for the incinerator because of health and environmental fears
•November 2010: The planning inspector turns down the scheme
•July 2011: The High Court overturns this decision after an appeal by Resource Recovery Solutions
•September 2012: A second public inquiry into the incinerator gives it the go-ahead
•March 2013: Campaigners challenge the inspector's decision in the High Court but are unsuccessful
•April 2013: Plans approved by city council
•June 2014: City council agrees to pay compensation to developers
•February 2023: report into the scandal kept secret because of 'commercial interests'.
•July 2023: councils pay owners £93.5m
•August 2024: councils look at restarting the project.
"The polling also found a strong majority for law change among religious people, with two-thirds (66%) of those who follow a religion stating their support, including 69% of Christians and 65% of Catholics."
So these "senior figures" are out of touch,
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/news/every-parliamentary-constituency-in-great-britain-backs-assisted-dying-law-new-polling-confirms/
Steve Cooper sacked by Leicester.
Which to be fair when the real tax rate they face is about 80% is entirely rational behaviour.
Sadly on that there was absolutely nothing in the Budget.
Until you can 100% confirm the results a person gives you are not bullshit, you can't trust the end result. I find it really strange that people don't grasp that. Maybe they do.