i thought this salon article was quite articulate and gracious.
Posted by bananie at June 10, 2005 8:01 AM | TrackBackthanks for posting this, boo. articulate and gracious indeed. i was most moved by this bit:
"I found myself agreeing with Warren that if parents are married, then ideally their marriages would be about intellectual and sexual and social companionship with each other and not simply about kids or money or vows or other ties keeping them together for the sake of being together. That doesn't seem like a bad dynamic to celebrate. . . . For Warren, matchmaking seems not to be about marriage for the sake of marriage (or for the sake of church and country), but about the quality of the unions we form."
and i learned what obstreperousness means.
xo.
Posted by: [jp/p] at June 10, 2005 1:13 PMI thought it was a bit condescending like "oh look at the Christian trying to pair people up, isn't it adorable". Also, the author seemed bent on discussing religion in certain parts when it didn't seem relevant. My 2 cents.
Posted by: RichardZ.com at June 10, 2005 3:44 PMBut I think she learned something.
Sometimes the dance of dialogue is more important than the conversation itself.
Posted by: [jp/p] at June 10, 2005 4:29 PM