It got my goat, is all. The tone of the original article has this "gone are the good old days" attitude to it that rankles me a bit, and the traditions that are being defended are either superfluous (bridal registry) or in no danger of going away (bachelor/ette parties), and all in the name of the "sanctity of marriage". The god-fullness of both article and primary debater in this also bugged me a bit.
My first answer was pissy, so I actually wanted to be more constructive on the second go-round, instead of saying something incredibly provocative like "destroy the institution of marriage so that it can be rebuilt without all the broken crap". I've already chosen to not dive back in again, though I am interested to see what my uncle (he's one of the commenters) decides to say.
Comments 2
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
It got my goat, is all. The tone of the original article has this "gone are the good old days" attitude to it that rankles me a bit, and the traditions that are being defended are either superfluous (bridal registry) or in no danger of going away (bachelor/ette parties), and all in the name of the "sanctity of marriage". The god-fullness of both article and primary debater in this also bugged me a bit.
My first answer was pissy, so I actually wanted to be more constructive on the second go-round, instead of saying something incredibly provocative like "destroy the institution of marriage so that it can be rebuilt without all the broken crap". I've already chosen to not dive back in again, though I am interested to see what my uncle (he's one of the commenters) decides to say.
Heh. Consider it my personal wrongworddammit.
Reply
Leave a comment