OT- I'm just amazed it ever had to come to this...

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 2:26 am

On a sidenote, I just hope I see the day when Congress feels the need to personally investigate the death or potential death of someone black. Or that the media decides to descend in mass upon the court case of William Archer, black, age thirty-one, who decided to off his wife and pregnant baby. I can't help but watch any media frenzy without thinking, "Look, two more white people." You'd think the country looked like North Dakota from the stories it chooses to concern itself with.

Anyway, this is a story that I've been categorically determined not to touch. But I think it is thoroughly disingenuous to argue that starving the woman's body to death is inhumane when the political interest group that is behind that charge is the same one that has ensured that more humane methods of assisted death are illegal. And I'm going to agree with doug that the husband has been unfairly tarred. There is nothing amoral about a man who comes to grips with the fact that the woman who was his wife has ceased to exist and goes on to have another family. He's supposed to divorce a vegetable? Why? The fiction of marriage as a sacred bond that somehow still has claim over him in that scenario is the same kind of dimestore romantic drivel that would have him chained to her bedside for twenty years waiting for her body to do something other than corrode. It's fantasyland moralism. The man tried his best to cure his wife, but she's not curable. She's gone. He has the right to move on.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 2:27 am

pk500 wrote:

Come on, Teal, you need better sourcing than a blatant right-wing conservative site disguised as an objective news organization.

Hey, PK, don't blame me. I asked if anyone knew about this. It was news to me, too. I don't know anything about csn news. Suits me if that's the case. I wasn't staking my case on it...I just came across it...
[/b]

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 2:43 am

seanmac31 wrote:On a sidenote, I just hope I see the day when Congress feels the need to personally investigate the death or potential death of someone black. Or that the media decides to descend in mass upon the court case of William Archer, black, age thirty-one, who decided to off his wife and pregnant baby. I can't help but watch any media frenzy without thinking, "Look, two more white people." You'd think the country looked like North Dakota from the stories it chooses to concern itself with.

Anyway, this is a story that I've been categorically determined not to touch. But I think it is thoroughly disingenuous to argue that starving the woman's body to death is inhumane when the political interest group that is behind that charge is the same one that has ensured that more humane methods of assisted death are illegal. And I'm going to agree with doug that the husband has been unfairly tarred. There is nothing amoral about a man who comes to grips with the fact that the woman who was his wife has ceased to exist and goes on to have another family. He's supposed to divorce a vegetable? Why? The fiction of marriage as a sacred bond that somehow still has claim over him in that scenario is the same kind of dimestore romantic drivel that would have him chained to her bedside for twenty years waiting for her body to do something other than corrode. It's fantasyland moralism. The man tried his best to cure his wife, but she's not curable. She's gone. He has the right to move on.

Seanmac:
I'm not sure I'll even ask about the first paragraph...huh? Anyway, not what I wanted to respond to.

Ceased to exist? Are you serious? If she has ceased to exist, then why pray tell would he be so adamant about making her cease to exist now? Isn't that all settled and done with, per your take on it? Why doesn't he just go the hell away, if she's no longer there? He doesn't seem to love her enough (which is a choice, not a feeling) to have attempted much of anything other than court appearances to make damn sure she dies.

He DOES have the right to move on. Then....why doesn't he? Ain't nobody stopping him. No, he won't go until this woman you say doesn't exist is in the ground. He won't let anyone else near her to help her. He's barred her mother and father, for pity's sake, from seeing her until she's in a casket now. What kind of a shithead does that? Let any future daughter-in-law of mine tell me I can't see my son as he lays there dying of thirst by court order, and see what happens.

It is deplorable to refer to a human being as a vegetable in an effort, obviously, to de-humanize her.

Oh, and as to the "fiction of marriage as a sacred bond" malarkey...the vows, as I remember reciting them to my wife, were "til death do us part."
So he's supposed to be able to dip his wick in some other woman's wax because the one he had suffered a tragedy? There's a loving devoted man for you...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:54 am

Sean:

My belief, based in faith and reality, is that life begins at conception and ends at death, as in when a person ceases to have a heartbeat.

That's not fantasyland moralism. It's my belief, just as it is your belief that life is disposable when the guardian deems fit.

I'm sure my belief will cause you to label me as some sort of right-wing, fundamentalist redneck. Not true. Actually it would be accurate if you labeled me as a fairly devout Roman Catholic.

I'll side with my belief and reserve comment on yours instead of denigrating it by calling it some Walt Disney World sideshow.

Take care,
PK

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:51 am

pk500 wrote:Well, that explains everything: cnsnews.com is anything but an objective news site.

I did a little research around the site and discovered that it's an arm of Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org), which has a motto of: "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias."

OK, like we're supposed to take a report from a site like that as objective and neutral.

That story doesn't just stink; it reeks. Come on, Teal, you need better sourcing than a blatant right-wing conservative site disguised as an objective news organization.

I don't trust Schiavo, but that story on that site doesn't support or enhance my suspicion of him one bit. That story is an absolute joke.

Take care,
PK

It's the "news" site run by Brent "Bozo" Bozell of the Richard Schaife-funded Media Research Center. CNSNews has as much credibility as Jeff Gannon's exposed left nut.

I did read the supeonas, though, and agree with Jared. It seemed a little neat, and I wondered why their testimony wasn't used. I actually tried to google to find out (using the name of the nurse who said Terri talked to her), but all I got was a lot of sites regurgitating this glorified press release.

I saw that a federal judge struck down the appeal from the parents by saying the federal court would reach the same conclusion as the state. Jared's done a good job already of pointing out why this poor woman isn't going to recover. It's a shame that the media and Congress had to amplify the tragedy by turning this into a circus.

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:48 am

The first paragraph probably seems random when you are confining yourself to this particular "crisis," inapplicable though that word might be. But it's very difficult to live through one sideshow "This is supposed to be important to me because some journalist/politician/whoever decided to point a flashlight on it as opposed to the sixteen million other things that could be up for public discussion" acts after another without noticing every so often that every single one of them is about white people and for the consumption of white people. You'll have to forgive me, I'm still reeling from all those heartwarming stories about American tourists who kind of sort of saw the tsunami and could have died if in theory as opposed to, say, actually covering the population that did die, and die in horrifying numbers. I suspect that there were a minimum of several hundred instances across the country where a black husband killed his black wife in the couple of weeks since this has been a major story or since Laci's mom told Scott to go burn in hell or whatever. And you will never, ever see them covered by the national media. And you will never see Congress call any emergency sessions or create special laws in their name. Make of that what you will, but it inevitably strikes me every time there is a new horrible thing for us all to get hot and bothered about. That's my intro to American media literacy 101.

As for your second point, coming to the point where you accept the idea that your wife isn't coming back and it is time for you to try having a relationship or a family with another woman and coming to the extremely painful decision to end the life of your wife don't have to operate in some sort of strict chronology. It's not like needing to put your socks on before your shoes. There is a pantheon of literature dedicated to the difficulty a spouse has in moving on and establishing a new life; now conflate that with the difficulty of being responsible for the body of someone you were married to, and feeling the need to carry out her will. Each decision requires different levels of disentangling yourself from your past, and those are things that only come with years of living in the situation, something that you, I, nor any of the mighty blowhards who have been heaping scorn down upon the man's head have done.

Referring to someone who is brain-dead as being in a persistent vegetative state is fairly standard terminology. It's certainly not something I plucked out of the air in my stringent desire to offend you or anyone else.

The fiction of the bonds of sacred marriage is just that. A fiction. You can take vows, you can swear up and down to whomever and whatever you choose, state or church, and plunge willingly into the institution (an institution of pretty dubious historical worth, which essentially existed as a means to control female sexual activity so that land could be passed down through proper channels). But that's irrelevant. The bonds between man and woman are created and maintained through works, through interaction upon interaction, through years of physical, mental and emotional interplay. That's not for any outside institution to bestow, and there is no bestowal that can enforce those bonds where the natural conditions do not exist for it. And when one of the two partners has entered a permanent coma, those conditions cease to exist.

I don't know about you but the last thing I would wish upon my wife in the limited time she has on earth is to spend all her years locked to my body if I no longer had a mind to go with it. It would be a colossal waste and would show a monstrous selfishness on my part.

As for the question of when life begins or ends, I can understand a church-based idea that birth and death are the bookmarks. But the problem with this kind of moral simplicity is the same problem with any belief in God to begin with- it springs from an essential ignorance (I'm sure that sounds profoundly offensive, but it's really not meant to- ignorance in this case not having it's modern connotation but rather referring to the simple act of substituting a constructed answer in lieu of one steeped in either experience or scientific inquiry).

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:14 am

I suspect that there were a minimum of several hundred instances across the country where a black husband killed his black wife in the couple of weeks since this has been a major story or since Laci's mom told Scott to go burn in hell or whatever. And you will never, ever see them covered by the national media. And you will never see Congress call any emergency sessions or create special laws in their name. Make of that what you will, but it inevitably strikes me every time there is a new horrible thing for us all to get hot and bothered about. That's my intro to American media literacy 101.

That is quite an assumption you make there. Care to share any cases with us? Also were any of those wives pregnant? I mean if we are going to compare apples to apples. Oh and forgot to add that timing is importaint, remember Laci Peterson was murdered on Christmas Eve. Or in the Sahiavo case a senario where laws on keeping her alive are being impacted?

Sometimes the timing/implications of these things play a factor in the amount of news coverage. Shocking but ture (I assumed your time in American Media Literacy 101 taught you that). You can't just kill your wife and expect to be on national news. It just does not work that way. You have to do something extrodinary to get that extra coverage. I hardly consider the Schavo and Petterson cases to be ordinary white man takes the life of his white wife.

Also does it have to be about killing your wife? I seem to recall Michael Jackson getting alot of coverage lately. Also Brian Nichols seemed to capture his share of airtime for his rampage.

Lookie here, third major US news story at the time of posting.
Abducted Georgia Children found safe..
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/22/georgi ... index.html

Yes I know it is a positive news story in the end and no wives were murdered (only an ex-girfriend raped and her father shot) but you take what you can get. Who knows the father might not make it and now you have yourself more of a story and more extensive coverage.

LAking · Post by **LAking** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:39 am

Seanmac, you are F'ing brilliant. A true man of science. That's all i have to say.

Oh, and one more thing, i don't know if totally agree with the first part of your post seanmac. I was mostly refering to the stuff about relgions and man made institutions.

LAking · Post by **LAking** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:51 am

bdoughty, just to throw in an opposing view, i've actually heard that when women are murdered in this country, the majority of the time it is by their own husbands or boyfriends. Now i can't back this up with statistics, it's just that i was talking to a girl who said that when she was pregnant (at age 19), at one point she thought her boyfriend (the father) was considering killing her. And i guess she later found out about the statistic i mentioned. So if this is true, and i don't have any reason to doubt her sources (i believe it was a cop friend of hers), perhaps there really are a lot more murdered pregnant women than the peterson case. Not that i completely agree with seanmacs idea that it's all based on race and stuff, but just a thought.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:53 am

I don't doubt the number being speculated on but I would have to ask what about all the white or hispanic women that are murdered by their husbands/boyfriends during that time fame. Would it not be in the hundreds also? What about the extended air time for them?

Again there was some compelling reasons the Peterson case got the airtime it did. Right or wrong that is how the media works.

kicko · Post by **kicko** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:28 am

This is such an easy case that should have never been allowed to go this far. she depends on a machine to keep her alive, her husband the "next of kin" has the right to not continue keeping her on the machine. the doctors say there is no chance for recovery. i think a spouse knows the person a little better then their own parents at this point. You spend evweryday with your spouse not your parents. It does not even matter if he's doing it for money....he has that right! As far as the GOV. sticking their noses where they don't belong again.... and allowing the parents to shop for a judge until they get thier decision, at this time they have had over 30 judges consider the case and none will touch it, becuse they know that a spouse has the power, even if you or we agree or not.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:42 am

Lots of people are incapacitated or otherwise can't stay alive on their own. That's not a good reason to let them die, even if their legal guardian wants them to. Especially when they are still breathing, etc. on their own.

The only good reasons I can see to let them die is if they are brain-dead (not just damaged) or if they left (notarized) instructions on what to do beforehand.

I'm not against euthanasia -- I think you should be able to die if you want to. It's in cases like this, where the person can't say what they want and there's no living will, that I'm against it.

I'm not in favor of changing the laws for this one case, though. It's just one of those things where a bunch of factors came together (no living will, can't talk, asshole husband) and created a bad situation that the law can't fix without breaking bigger things.

Edit: and it's not just the GOP that wanted to interfere...look at the dozens of Democratic congressmen dropped what they were doing to run back and vote "yes."

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:03 am

seanmac:

I'm nowhere near in agreement with your opinion on faith, or this case of killing someone who is simply handicapped. I have no use in the idea that the courts and doctors get to decide when a human life is no longer worth the trouble. The "this was Terri's wish" mantra floated by one man and his " I'll say whatever you say" attorney (which is what they're paid to do) is not provable. It just isn't. That a court can somehow arbitrarily find to that end doesn't make it right, or sensical.

But that is beside the point, apparently, as the courts, without seeing her, without considering that several independent doctors who have examined her have filed affidavits in opposition to the PVS baloney, have determined to allow this morbid freakshow to continue.

Your thoughts on marriage and matters of faith are unfortunate, and seriously out in left field, but I'll give you this: at least you aren't a belligerent pecker head about it, as is the MO of some. I can appreciate that...

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:03 am

damn double posts...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:05 am

seanmac31 wrote:The fiction of the bonds of sacred marriage is just that. A fiction. You can take vows, you can swear up and down to whomever and whatever you choose, state or church, and plunge willingly into the institution (an institution of pretty dubious historical worth, which essentially existed as a means to control female sexual activity so that land could be passed down through proper channels). But that's irrelevant. The bonds between man and woman are created and maintained through works, through interaction upon interaction, through years of physical, mental and emotional interplay. That's not for any outside institution to bestow, and there is no bestowal that can enforce those bonds where the natural conditions do not exist for it. And when one of the two partners has entered a permanent coma, those conditions cease to exist.

Sean:

Quick question: Are you married? Have you ever been married?

Take care,
PK

kicko · Post by **kicko** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:24 am

FatPitcher wrote:Lots of people are incapacitated or otherwise can't stay alive on their own. That's not a good reason to let them die, even if their legal guardian wants them to. Especially when they are still breathing, etc. on their own.

The only good reasons I can see to let them die is if they are brain-dead (not just damaged) or if they left (notarized) instructions on what to do beforehand.

I'm not against euthanasia -- I think you should be able to die if you want to. It's in cases like this, where the person can't say what they want and there's no living will, that I'm against it.

I'm not in favor of changing the laws for this one case, though. It's just one of those things where a bunch of factors came together (no living will, can't talk, asshole husband) and created a bad situation that the law can't fix without breaking bigger things.

Edit: and it's not just the GOP that wanted to interfere...look at the dozens of Democratic congressmen dropped what they were doing to run back and vote "yes."

it really not that hard.......... he says "she would not want to live like that" doctors "ok then we respect your wishes" since she can't make up her own mind he can legally do it for her, like it or not, why do you think no judge will rule in the parents favor? if it were me i would ask the same, and roleplay for a second what if it was your wife, you'd let her just sit and rot, what kind of quality life is that? if the big bad GOV. wants to intervine then hey they can pay the medical bill, which is a whole other issue, who's paying for this care???? the parents???? the hubby??? oh it's the tax payers????

Post by **Jared** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:37 pm

tealboy03 wrote:seanmac:

I'm nowhere near in agreement with your opinion on faith, or this case of killing someone who is simply handicapped. I have no use in the idea that the courts and doctors get to decide when a human life is no longer worth the trouble. The "this was Terri's wish" mantra floated by one man and his " I'll say whatever you say" attorney (which is what they're paid to do) is not provable. It just isn't. That a court can somehow arbitrarily find to that end doesn't make it right, or sensical.

But people other than the husband testified that it was Terri's wish as well. The courts didn't make this judgment solely on his testimony...other friends of Schiavo also testified saying the same thing.

And with Schiavo, she's not "simply handicapped". She's virtually brain-dead...the only thing left of any use is her brain stem and some subcortical function. Vegetable, as sad as it is, is a correct term for her condition. The neurologists that have examined her and testified that say that she can be rehabilitated are quacks (I can write tons of posts about this alone...this Hammesfahr guy is a joke).

It's the same strategy over and over again. Paint the situation as something that's black and white (the husband was the only person to say that she didn't want to stay in this position, the husband refused all treatment, the husband cheered when she might die, that only the husband is motivated by money, that the husband is witholding MRIs, that the judges are overstepping their bounds, that she can speak and respond to real stimuli), with the husband being the epitome of evil while the parents are blessed. But all people have to do is just read the court documents and do a little self-examination and see that this is a really complicated matter that can't be boiled down to a battle versus good and evil.

And it's a shame that the people that are promulgating these lies and mistruths (not you Teal, the people that write/publicize these articles) are invoking God in this while continuing to put out lies and mistruths.

One more thing...this is what the parents' attorneys are saying now:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar21.html

Attorneys for Robert and Mary Schindler argued that allowing their brain-damaged daughter to die before the federal courts can review her case would violate Congress's will and lead to the "damnation of her soul" because it would conflict with her religious beliefs.

Does anyone here believe this? That she'll be damned to hell because of a court decision? This is disgusting.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:47 pm

Saying that Schiavo is "simply handicapped" is quite possibly the biggest understatement I have ever heard in my life.

If Schiavo's soul is damned due to her unfortunate circumstances and a court decision, I'd better start shopping for a new God because I'm toast.

kicko · Post by **kicko** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:16 pm

these parents need to get a grip......she is already in hell

LAking · Post by **LAking** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:53 pm

Your thoughts on marriage and matters of faith are unfortunate, and seriously out in left field, but I'll give you this: at least you aren't a belligerent pecker head about it, as is the MO of some. I can appreciate that...

Why is it unfortunate that he has obviously done research on the history of marriage and knows the truth? Just because he knows there really is no "correct" way to be married to someone doesn't mean he can't also want a marriage of his own. But that's besides the point. The point Sean is trying to make is that your faith and your cultural practices shouldn't be used as a meter to judge the husband of this women. Marriage has changed quite a bit over history and it hasn't always been used as a way join to people who love eachother. Throughout most of history it had a lot more to do with money and property than anything else. People are labeling him as an adulterer and a bad husband when they have no idea what HIS or HER views on marriage were to begin with. Just because one religion claims that marriage has to be a certain way does not mean that some other religion or any other person has to follow that way. You have to remember one thing, not a single religion has any kind of proof that their beliefs in god and all that are real. It's a LEAP OF FAITH! Notice the word "leap"? Kind of sounds like jumping off a cliff doesn't it? You're guessing (usually because your parents said so) that the cliff you're jumping off of is the right one.
How does anyone know that this married couple didn't agree at some point that if something like this were to ever happen then it was OK for them to move on with their life and start a new family, as long as they carried out their wishes of ending their suffering. If that was their agreement then you can't say it's right or wrong. It's THEIR version of marriage, not YOURS, and until you can give ANY proof that your version is the "right" version than you can quit judging others for not adhering to your religious beliefs. I have no problem with people having their own religions and faiths. It's not a bad thing by any means. However I do have a problem when people don't understand what the word "faith" means.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:16 pm

kicko wrote:This is such an easy case that should have never been allowed to go this far.

Kicko, please don't take this personally. I beg you. But that sort of ignorance on both sides is what I find most astonishing.

I can't understand how any remotely intelligent person can fail to see the credibility that each side of this issue brings to the table.

Say that your mind is made up. Say that you think the government or family acted correctly or incorrectly. But do not say that it's an easy case!!

I'm always amazed at the extent to which zealotry destroys rational thought, and this is a prime example.

To use a tired but unfortunately apt metaphor, this is a "perfect storm" situation which drives a stake right into the confluence of medicine, law, ethics and religion. Thousands of people a year deal with the horrifying dilemna of a loved one in a vegetative state, and manage to resolve it without involving religious, medical or political zealots. Unfortunately, the unusual circumstances of this particular case have let those people right in the front door.

But that doesn't change the fact that there are powerful, well-reasoned and persuasive arguments on both sides of this issue. How anyone can let their passion for one side or the other so thoroughly distort reality is simply beyond me, and frankly, a bit scary.

People on both sides need to spend a little less time chanting, holding placards and writing inflammatory posts, and a little more thinking, reading and, especially, LISTENING.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:23 pm

pk500 wrote:
seanmac31 wrote:The fiction of the bonds of sacred marriage is just that. A fiction. You can take vows, you can swear up and down to whomever and whatever you choose, state or church, and plunge willingly into the institution (an institution of pretty dubious historical worth, which essentially existed as a means to control female sexual activity so that land could be passed down through proper channels). But that's irrelevant. The bonds between man and woman are created and maintained through works, through interaction upon interaction, through years of physical, mental and emotional interplay. That's not for any outside institution to bestow, and there is no bestowal that can enforce those bonds where the natural conditions do not exist for it. And when one of the two partners has entered a permanent coma, those conditions cease to exist.
Sean:

Quick question: Are you married? Have you ever been married?

Take care,
PK

I think he's right about his opinion, i dont know what being married or not has to do with it. If 2 people are not compatible to live happily married, I dont see how god is going to save that.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:29 pm

RobVarak wrote:People on both sides need to spend a little less time chanting, holding placards and writing inflammatory posts, and a little more thinking, reading and, especially, LISTENING.

But...but...that involves EFFORT! Who wants that?

And this thread is now flying all over the place.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:36 pm

Weaver2005 wrote:
pk500 wrote:
seanmac31 wrote:The fiction of the bonds of sacred marriage is just that. A fiction. You can take vows, you can swear up and down to whomever and whatever you choose, state or church, and plunge willingly into the institution (an institution of pretty dubious historical worth, which essentially existed as a means to control female sexual activity so that land could be passed down through proper channels). But that's irrelevant. The bonds between man and woman are created and maintained through works, through interaction upon interaction, through years of physical, mental and emotional interplay. That's not for any outside institution to bestow, and there is no bestowal that can enforce those bonds where the natural conditions do not exist for it. And when one of the two partners has entered a permanent coma, those conditions cease to exist.
Sean:

Quick question: Are you married? Have you ever been married?

Take care,
PK
I think he's right about his opinion, i dont know what being married or not has to do with it. If 2 people are not compatible to live happily married, I dont see how god is going to save that.

That's because Sean doesn't see how faith fits into a marriage. I was married in the Catholic Church, and my wedding vows in that Church, before God, mean a lot more to me than the f*cking marriage license I got from the county clerk.

I don't see marriage as a legal contract. I see it as a sacrament from God. The only reason I got a marriage license was because the state of New York requires it. Otherwise, it's just a piece of paper and an excuse for the Empire State to take more of my money.

Sean takes a very inflexible view toward any faith or religion because he's an agnostic or atheist, I think. He's just as narrow-minded as those with faith who try to ram their beliefs down the throats of disbelievers.

Faith exists, like it or not. Lack of faith exists, like it or not. And people base their belief and value systems on one, the other or sometimes a combination of both. And for anyone to deny that faith plays a role in the majority of people's value systems -- whether it's Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Buddhism, Scientology, etc., etc. -- is simply narrow-minded and pile-driving their head into the sand or better yet, the La Brea Tar Pits, where the no-faith crowd thinks all life generated.

The reason I asked Sean if he was married is that he seems to be quite an expert on marriage, at least his view of it. So I wondered if he has been married, has experienced marriage.

If he hasn't, well, that would be like me reading a book on pottery and calling myself an expert even though I've never turned clay in my life. You can read about marriage all you like, but until you've experienced it day in and day out, you're just an outsider with an opinion.

Take care,
PK