gawd, genius

alright, now another example that would reflect the situation in question.

Yes, I understood what you meant. But I do not believe Medvedev's rhetoric is a sign of something big to come. He's just capitalizing on USA's crappy reputation, I mean, russians like it when no one likes the US. So he emphasizes its weaknesses.

Saying "a new cold war" is overstretched
But russians do hate americans. Ever since they bought Alaska.

My opinion is

"The One" theory is wrong, but it's purposeful.

The chemical theory, although probably being correct, could be harmful if it was widespread. With the chemical theory it's hard to keep marriages stable, and as we know, the traditional family is the best environment to raise children.

All of this could have been avoided, you know.

"Money shouldn't get in the way of who you are."
Then why leave your homeland, if roots are more important than money? Unless you're forced to leave, like when fleeing a war, trying to create a new "homeland" abroad for economic reasons is no less than hypocrisy. It's more than uneconomic for the target society, it's also immoral: you're claiming a right to enter an established society without even considering whether you'll stir things up for others. If people come to a country, they should integrate. That doesn't mean completely losing their memories of the things before, but that does mean actively working to fit in, learning the language and culture and switching allegiance. If you want a piece of the pie, you have to give your piece of the dough. If I emigrated to America, I'd try to be twice the american as anyone, and I expect the same from all people who come to my country too.

You're from Estonia, if I recall correctly. How are your statues standing?

I'd like to b*tch about some of your points

Firstly, Rome was a late civilization. Marriage existed well before roman matrimonium, it existed in Egypt, Messopotamia, India, wherever. Marriage was indeed meant to subdue women, the head of the family would always be the husband. Why do you think the term 'patriarchical society' is used?

So I don't get why you put Rome in here, but I'd like to flex my memory too.
The digests came very late in roman history. In earlier times, nothing similar to equality existed in the roman family. In fact, the roman family was even more patriarchical than barbarian families of the time (even Gaius admitted that). Pater familias had all the power in his family, and his wife wouldn't even take over after his death - she'd fall under the potestas of the new pater familias. Pater familias even had the right to sell his own children (wife?) to slavery - "trans tiberum". By engaging into a marriage "cum manu" a woman would lose her suability(?) if she had it in the first place - "capitis deminutio".
And even in the times of the digests - do you honestly think there was such a thing as an independent+married woman by todays standarts?

"The Roman lawsystem worked with precedents, and did not know laws or the like."

What about the law of the twelve tables, the corpus iuris civilis and everything inbetween?
And roman law based on precedents, wtf? Until written laws started gaining importance, roman law was based solely on custums. A principle "a similibus ad similia" was indeed taken into account, but roman law was certainly NOT based on precedent :\

Then there were the middle ages, where the only free-ish women were widows, and all those other ages right up until the downfall of the "american housewife". In the west.

X(

"Is this so horrible to teach all three and allow people to decide on their own? Or should society push one not of your favor upon you, your friends, and your children?"

You're not reading other peoples' posts, politician. In science class you have evolution and in religion class you have creationism. Make separate exams if you like and there's no fuss.

Anyway squeezing religion into science classes only shows how insecure people feel about creationism.
Has anyone ever offered evolution to be lectured in religion classes? No. Academics are clear-headed and they aren't obsessed with Darwin. That's why politicians don't see any point in kissing their asses.

You have science classes and religion classes, simple as that.

There's a good article in The Economist about this: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9218127

Basicly marriage provides stability to the society. A married man will value security more than an unmarried one. Also kids raised in marriage tend to be smarter and more emotionaly mature.

de