Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our guidance forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 655
S
SadEyes Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 655
Hope4Future
there would not be a marriage builders anymore if they had their way...
and my God I serve is the same God that sent Jesus to die for those queers but they need to ask God to forgive them for practicing homosexuality, perhaps you need to read Gods word to us all..not just them to all of us..no crusade..
this is the gospel truth..ignore it..if you want.
God is love, God loves them He hates the sin..He asks us to share the gospel with any who will listen and if they hear it and repent and get saved..then they will go to heaven along with the rest of the people no special things for anyone..
WHOSOEVER is what Gods word says that means me, you them..too..all of us..but we need to stop sinning and do what HE SAYS TO DO..so don't get angry at me..get angry at Him tell Him HE IS WRONG and your right..lol haha..not me..I am doing what HE wants me to do..with no regrets..

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">you hope4future said Isn't this God that you speak of supposed to be forgiving? And isn't it in the bible that it's God, and ONLY God that's supposed to be the ultimate judge? Isn't it always preached here and everywhere to let go and let God? If these people are committing such horrendous and dispicable acts...won't God take care of it in his/hers own way? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes HE will send them to hell as HE promised if they continue to do these things..but the thing is I have told whoever will listen here so..their blood is not on my hands anymore..I did what was required of me to do..

why don't you read Gods word to us..to all..and make up your own mind instead of listening to anyone else get alone with HIM and pray and seek HIM and see what happens..maybe you will be suprised at the outcome and answers you get..look at the last chapter of revelations it is what IS GOING TO HAPPEN...ALL ...who do not accept HIM rejects HIM and then HE judges..and that means you too if you do not know HIM...so now you know too..you have no excuse..is all..I will pray God will open your spiritual eyes and ears so you can hear and see..so you don't follow the blind..that lead the blind because that is whats happening..they are all going into the ditch...
and it's sad for them to go there..one right after another..

oh what I wanted to tell you..THIS IS MY THREAD..so you didn't need to read and you didn't need to post either..so I can say what I want on this..and I DID..just like you can post on your thread...grin..I LOVE JESUS...AND HE LOVES ME AND HE DIED FOR ME ON CALVARY..HE ALSO DIED FOR ALL MEN AND WOMEN..ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS CALL ON HIM AND ASK FORGIVENESS AND REPENT..and serve HIM...thats all...then their soul belongs to God..and satan won't have them anymore..simple really even children understand it... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 816
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 816
A salaam aleichem. And praise be unto Allah.

Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 655
S
SadEyes Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 655
Let us love one another, for love comes from God.
Everyone who loves has been born of God
and knows God. Whoever does not love
does not know God, because God is love;
(1 John 4:7-8)

"Love the LORD your God with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your strength
(Deuteronomy 6:5)

"You will seek me and find me
when you seek me with all your heart
(Jeremiah 29:13)

We need a intimate relationship with God !

We need to have a personal relationship with God,

we need to have an awareness of His Son Jesus Christ

we need to have Jesus living in our heart!

"Do you have Jesus living in your heart? Have you asked Him to forgive your
sins and to cleanse you from all unrighteousness, as it says in, 1John1:9?

are you washed in the blood of the lamb?

God bless you
Know you are forgiven, if you asked God to forgive you, He did.

HE is faithful and just to forgive your sins and cleanse you like He promised in His word..

God Bless you

It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgement. (Gods judgement not mine, not yours..HIS)

we all have to decide for ourself each and every soul on earth has to choose..what they will do with Gods gift to us..Jesus..what did you do..accept Him, or reject Him..
accept Him we are with Him in paradise
reject Him we go to hell..it is soo simple children lead their parents to Him sometimes.
so no one can be ignorant HE left His will and testament for us..IT IS CALLED A BIBLE
Read it you are a joint heir look and see what you have inherited..if you choose to be one of HIS..

and what happens if you don't become HIS

Thank you Father that you hear our prayers and answer us. AMEN!
----------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
I forgot to add my post lol..hehhe
now the last one out please shut off the lights.
EarthAngel

<small>[ July 21, 2003, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: SadEyes ]</small>

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,028
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,028
I grew up in a family divided many ways over because of different religious beliefs. I heard the debates at every holiday and family get together. I hated Christmas for a lot of years. It was the loudest holiday of the year. And go figure, nobody...NOBODY...ever changed anyone elses mind.

If you really care about what your preaching, you might think about learning a more tactful way to bring it across. I don't think you've changed anyones mind here.

Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,406
N
NSR Offline
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,406
whippit...

A salaam aleichem...
...'and also with you'. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

-------------

Spacecase:

No we can't legislate feelings...
But marriage can, and is already being legislated - at the state/local level.

What is being asked here... is to modify this legislation to include gays.
i.e. to change the definition of 'marriage'.

It isn't about CHOICE...
It isn't about punishment...

It is about keeping the concept of 'family'...
...the only basic, viable unit to protect and keep society alive and flourishing.

----------

cjack:

I really think you're missing my point(s):
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The "line" is drawn at what CONSENTING ADULTS can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">...
...tell me why this is the line... that will not be crossed?
...and on what basis you can argue that this will not be crossed?

Yes... I believe that homosexuality is a deviant form of behavior...
whether it is criminal... (that's up to civil law)...
whether or not it should be punished by the govenment... (that's again up to civil law)...
... and that is NOT what I am advocating... please be kind enough not credit those ideas to me.

I truely love homosexuals...
I love drug addicts...
I love those addicted to gambling...
I love the homeless and sick...
I love child molestors... pedophiles...
I love rapists...
I love murders... thieves... and liars...
I love those cheat and slander...
I love those who break marriages...
I love adulterers... and you probably don't believe it... I still pray every day (usually more than once) for ex-wife too!

...but it doesn't mean that their behavior is acceptable to me... (I guess that is what you mean by 'intolerance'... maybe?)
...nor does it mean that when there is attack on 'family' (or the definition of 'marriage')...
...I hate the attacker... but... I will stand on the morality I was raised on and embrace... to protect the sacredness of 'marriage'... one of the reasons I have been here at MB.

Does 'love' mean we condone... encourage... and embrace... destructive behavior?

Through this reply, I don't seek your respect... or anyone elses...
...nor do I wish to impose on you my belief, understanding or value of marriage...
...I just wish to express a concern for a betterment of marriage and family... that is so clearly deteriorating.

---------------

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">...nobody...NOBODY...ever changed anyone elses mind.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">... true... but we can hope that first that hearts can be touched and reached... and maybe... just maybe... with forces beyond the voice/thought of man... minds can be reached too.

----------

In perseverance and love...

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

<small>[ July 21, 2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: NSR ]</small>

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,508
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,508
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by NSR:
<strong>whippit...

A salaam aleichem...
...'and also with you'. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

-------------

Spacecase:

No we can't legislate feelings...
But marriage can, and is already being legislated - at the state/local level.

What is being asked here... is to modify this legislation to include gays.
i.e. to change the definition of 'marriage'.

It isn't about CHOICE...
It isn't about punishment...

It is about keeping the concept of 'family'...
...the only basic, viable unit to protect and keep society alive and flourishing.

----------

cjack:

I really think you're missing my point(s):
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The "line" is drawn at what CONSENTING ADULTS can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">...
...tell me why this is the line... that will not be crossed?
...and on what basis you can argue that this will not be crossed?

Yes... I believe that homosexuality is a deviant form of behavior...
whether it is criminal... (that's up to civil law)...
whether or not it should be punished by the govenment... (that's again up to civil law)...
... and that is NOT what I am advocating... please be kind enough not credit those ideas to me.

I truely love homosexuals...
I love drug addicts...
I love those addicted to gambling...
I love the homeless and sick...
I love child molestors... pedophiles...
I love rapists...
I love murders... thieves... and liars...
I love those cheat and slander...
I love those who break marriages...
I love adulterers... and you probably don't believe it... I still pray every day (usually more than once) for ex-wife too!

...but it doesn't mean that their behavior is acceptable to me... (I guess that is what you mean by 'intolerance'... maybe?)
...nor does it mean that when there is attack on 'family' (or the definition of 'marriage')...
...I hate the attacker... but... I will stand on the morality I was raised on and embrace... to protect the sacredness of 'marriage'... one of the reasons I have been here at MB.

Does 'love' mean we condone... encourage... and embrace... destructive behavior?

Through this reply, I don't seek your respect... or anyone elses...
...nor do I wish to impose on you my belief, understanding or value of marriage...
...I just wish to express a concern for a betterment of marriage and family... that is so clearly deteriorating.

---------------

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">...nobody...NOBODY...ever changed anyone elses mind.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">... true... but we can hope that first that hearts can be touched and reached... and maybe... just maybe... with forces beyond the voice/thought of man... minds can be reached too.

----------

In perseverance and love...

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">s..Good clarifying response Jim, you do come across a little strong sometimes with the deviant stuff, which is like raising a red flag in front of liberal bulls. But your reasoning is sound, my suggestion is spread the same message but tone down the rhetoric a bit, it just gives the opposing view a tool to refute you for bigotry (even though it isn't bigotry, cause no illwill is promoted for homosexuals). This assumes of course you have an agenda of persuading the undecideds to oppose gay marriage laws.

And I agree, this isn't about changing the closed minds of the obsessively "fairminded" no matter the consequences camp...this is about the hearts and minds of those who can be persuaded to accept the argument changing our social marital paradigm is not a good decision for a stable society (which of course benefits all, including homosexuals). It is tough being the minority in any circumstance, but ya know, that's life, and life isn't particularly "fair"...we cannot make decisions based on everyone being the "same", cause they are not. Society has to be run on a sound philosophic and pragmantic basis for the benefit of the majority and the minority.... to protect the person and property of minorities for sure...but not to promote their causes. Minorities must accept the realities of being a minority and live accordingly, or form their own country, where they are the majority and can make it work the way they want.

I am curious though, if we had the ability to create a new country, and offered it solely to homosexuals, I wonder how many would want to live in such a society?

<small>[ July 21, 2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
Oooof. What a hot-button subject for so many people! Particularly on this board, where the concept of "marriage" has been given a whole lot of thought . . .

One thing to recognize, I think, is that there are perfectly valid religious points of view that homosexual behavior is wrong and deviant, and that "marriage" is a sacred union between a man and a woman one of the primary purposes for which is to have children. To those who hold those beliefs, valid as they are, homosexuals are deviant people who need help and compassion, not enabling, and they should obviously never be permitted to "marry." You'll just never convince them otherwise.

But none of the actions taken by the Supreme Court, or by Massachussetts' high court, involve or impinge on those beliefs. No one, I believe, is saying that any religious body has to recognize gay unions, or teach that homosexuality is acceptable, or correct. Religions obviously remain free to condemn all kinds of immoral behavior (licentiousness, greed, unkindness) that the government can not prohibit.

What the courts are deciding, rather, is what the state can do vis a vis defining "marriage." The civil, legal definition of marriage doesn't have as much to do with the "purpose" of marriage, as it does with the kind of goodies that the state then accords to the people who it defines as "married." They get social insurance benefits, they can visit in emergency rooms and make emergency medical decisions, they can inherit, they own property jointly, and so on. "Married" folks, in other words, get SPECIAL benefits that the rest of us unmarried schlubs don't get. And the real question is whether there is a legitimate, valid reason for the government to distinguish between couples made up of a man and a woman, and those made up of two same-sex persons, when according those benefits.

Some folks in this thread (NSR, I think) brought up Rick Santorum's argument that if you permit homosexuality, then really anything goes -- bestiality, pedophilia, bigamy, etc. To me, that's just a false argument. There are obviously good reasons for the government to prohibit those kinds of relationships. With pedophilia and bestiality, the government should be able to protect those who are too young and/or vulnerable to protect themselves, and who are unable to give meaningful consent to what is being done to them. Bigamy (and adultery) have usually been prohibited on the theory that it's just easier to keep track of who's responsible for children (and for determining inheritance) in a two-parent relationship, and that relationships between caretakers are most stable.

The real question, to me, is whether there is any similar, non-religious reason to prohibit gay unions from receiving the "married goodies" with respect to a stable, consensual relationship between two members of the same sex. Remember the 1st Amendment. Any argument that has "because that's how God wants it to be" isn't a legitimate thing for the government to be saying.

If there is such a reason, I just don't see it.

It's inconceivable to me that a man and a woman, no matter how screwed up, or immature, or unstable, or abusive or whatever they are with each other, are permitted to marry, but my older, stable, loving gay friends who have been with each other for ten years and love each other fiercely, may not. Civil government sanctions marriage because it represents two citizens standing in front of their fellow citizens and saying "don't worry about us, we'll take care of each other." All gay folks want is a chance to say the same thing.

Obviously, all this is IMHO.

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,508
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,508
Nice post taxman, I am a Christian, pretty fundamental, but I do not argue the religious argument cause it dosen't apply to a secular issue...and far as the state is concerned, marriage is a contractural issue, so gay marriage proponents have to prove why adding their unions to the paradigm benefits the state...I have seen few such arguments, and none compelling. To argue "fairness" is the equivalent to arguing "religion", neither are relevant. And likewise the relgious folks have already taken their position as well as the fair folks, neither will budge....so the argument has to be for the undecideds <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

taxman..The real question, to me, is whether there is any similar, non-religious reason to prohibit gay unions from receiving the "married goodies" with respect to a stable, consensual relationship between two members of the same sex.

s...You made the same mistake many do. Did you make it purposefully, knowing you are trying to sneak in a bias...or was it simply a mistake?

The real question is NOT whether we should prohibit....BUT whether we should INCLUDE... If gays want to substantially alter the soicetal paradigm we live under...then they MUST prove why that is a net benefit to society, including heterosexuals....a tall order, but instead of doing this, they seek an end run by appealing to emotional issues of fairness and discrimination. There are no laws discriminateing against gays at all, they can do whatever they want under the law, and have all the same rights as heterosexuals if they want to marry. They just have to select a partner of the opposite sex...that is nothing remotely the same as you can't work here, eat here, travel here, live here cause you are a different race etc. Polygamists have the same problem, they can't enter state sanctioned marriage either, and they even have religion going for them (mormons for example).

tax...Remember the 1st Amendment. Any argument that has "because that's how God wants it to be" isn't a legitimate thing for the government to be saying.

s...I agree, is only useful in trying to sway public opinion if your relgion is the majority.

Tax...If there is such a reason, I just don't see it.

s...How hard have you looked. Could I see your detailed economic impact analysis on our society, just for starters. Can I see your analysis on the effect of a declining moral atmosphere on crime, etc. and how this paradigm shift would help/hinder this? Etc. etc.

tax...It's inconceivable to me that a man and a woman, no matter how screwed up, or immature, or unstable, or abusive or whatever they are with each other, are permitted to marry, but my older, stable, loving gay friends who have been with each other for ten years and love each other fiercely, may not.

s...I agree about the ease of marriage. It should be much harder to enter, with significant consequences if you leave it, and increased benefits/power to married people.

Tax...Civil government sanctions marriage because it represents two citizens standing in front of their fellow citizens and saying "don't worry about us, we'll take care of each other." All gay folks want is a chance to say the same thing.

s...Why? They can already do that, live however they want in committment, have whatever ceremony they want...I thought your issue was whether this was a benefit or not for society not they individual gay couple...which is it taxman?

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
Hey sufdb:

I just really disagree with you that arguing "fairness" is the same as arguing religion. The government is prohibited from instituting policies on religious grounds by the first amendment. By contrast, it is REQUIRED by the equal protection and due process clauses to be "fair," in that it may not make arbitrary distinctions between its citizens unless there is a legitimate and sufficiently compelling reason to do so. Under your rationale, the government could prohibit blue-eyed people from marrying (or receiving welfare benefits, or a driver's license) if it chose, unless those blue-eyed people could prove that their receipt of those benefits would "benefit" society as a whole. I just don't think that you're typically required to PROVE that you're entitled to an otherwise generally-available benefit. Rather, the government must prove why its reason for denying you that benefit withstands scrutiny.

Accordingly, the question for you is what detriment you can point to to indicate that gay marriage is a bad thing, and that the government therefore may properly discriminate against gay couples that wish to marry. As far as proving that gay marriage would be beneficial, obviously there's no economic study that can prove it because it hasn't BEEN legal anywhere in the world (except for the Netherlands, and now Canada). But if marriage itself is seen as a positive good on strictly economic, social terms, it certainly stands to reason that marriages between gays would provide roughly the same benefits, does it not? Wouldn't gays in stable, committed relationships be far less likely to be out at clubs, boozing it up, getting into trouble? Far more likely to save for retirement? To buy a home? To join community organizations?

Thanks for engaging me on my terms, by the way, I was kind of expecting to get flamed . . .

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,575
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,575
dear sadeyes----do you hold thid strong a belief for all those that dont serve your god---i thought many religions were different. they all hold different beliefs---is yours the only right one?

and please dont bother to tell me to not read your thread--i wont be. and quite possibly any in the future either.

the last thing i have to say is the last time i believe god showed himself---he was a burning bush. we may all be in big trouble when our time comes--for believing the wrong things.

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,868
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,868
The intolerance for other beliefs and points of view shown here is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ, whom you profess to follow...how very sad.

Shalom!

Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 8,016
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 8,016
sad eyes,

Just wondering why you wanted the other thread closed?

nikko,
it saddens me to see you soliciting this here. i feel it has no place here. we are here to save our own marriages---not judge others for theirs. this is sad.
True that most are here to save their own marriage but some are here to help others. This also includes supporting the institution of marriage for the benfit of society in general.

from the other thread. What are your feelings on same sex marriage? for it or against it?
first off-chris, do you have any kids???[b]
Yes, I do, 2 girls.
[b]if so i pray to god they never do anything outside what you believe is moral or legally correct. as a parent you would shun them if they committed a crime???

No. I don't know where you got that from. I said loving a child unconditonally is not the same as condoning or celebrating their being gay.

to grow up as a kid knowing you could be tossed aside by your own parent if you step out of bounds is horrible.
I never even implied I would toss them aside.

im sorry if this offends you but it is how i feel
Doesn't offend me at all but you should read a bit more carefully as to what is actually written.

Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 8,016
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 8,016
The intolerance for other beliefs and points of view shown here is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ,
Where does Jesus say to be toleraant of all behavior?

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,508
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,508
tax...I just really disagree with you that arguing "fairness" is the same as arguing religion. The government is prohibited from instituting policies on religious grounds by the first amendment. By contrast, it is REQUIRED by the equal protection and due process clauses to be "fair," in that it may not make arbitrary distinctions between its citizens unless there is a legitimate and sufficiently compelling reason to do so.

s....They are the same for the purposes of examining why each "camp" is intractable, and that was my point. To continue your point, the religion faction would say our system of fairness is Judeo-Christian based (which it is of course), so there you are, back to square one again WHOSE fairness do we apply? Fairness is not a principle it is a societal construct, and has to have an underlying basis to implement it....true? I suggested the "morality" argument does not apply in this case...so if religion is out, so is fairness. Using fairness arguments one can advocate absolutely any positon....WHEN you get to define the fairness parameters.

Tax...Under your rationale, the government could prohibit blue-eyed people from marrying (or receiving welfare benefits, or a driver's license) if it chose, unless those blue-eyed people could prove that their receipt of those benefits would "benefit" society as a whole.

s...And I would have no problem with that. I recognize the primary role of government is keeping the peace and promoting a stable society. If blue-eyed people shouldn't marry (each other), then I would imagine we would have evolved a marital paradigm that reflects that fact, and I would make the same observations if the blue-eyes sought to alter that societal paradigm...and I would make the same observation for any other silly (no offense meant taxman) analogies (and likewise I could make silly opposing ones, what's the point?).

The fact is govt has the power to order society, and it does so...end of story. We are debateing here why one position or another should prevail, there has to be some pragmatic basis, that usually means what's in it for me. So when a minority wants something, they have to persuade the majority it is a good thing for them too, otherwise there is no reason for granting the request...that is just the nature of human beings taxman. Knowing that, I direct my efforts to the undecideds to persuade them it is not in their best interests to support gay marriage, a strategy which will be more successful than visiting a moral battle on them....as the undecideds by definition are going to be predominantly pragmatic....otherwise they would allready have committed to one of the ethical camps. And I try to persuade my fellow anti-gay marriage advocates to adopt the same strategy.

tax....I just don't think that you're typically required to PROVE that you're entitled to an otherwise generally-available benefit. Rather, the government must prove why its reason for denying you that benefit withstands scrutiny.

s...This is essentially a red herring. Marriage is not a right, it is an intergral part of our societal paradigm. Something I will keep reminding the undecideds about so they are not confused by a clever stragety to make this a rights issue, and appeal to a sense of fairplay. Everyone has the right to marriage, you just can't marry children, mentally incompetent, same gender, animals, multiple partners, etc. *shrug* not in societies best interest to include those kinds of marital models. We had a similar movement a while back in our efforts to say males and females are the same and craft a unisex society, was an abysmal failure. What this movement essentially is doing is to create 4 a sex enviroment...male, female, gay male, gay female....which would raise all sorts of interesting (and distressing IMO) outcomes.

tax...Accordingly, the question for you is what detriment you can point to to indicate that gay marriage is a bad thing, and that the government therefore may properly discriminate against gay couples that wish to marry.

s...I don't have to prove anything. That's why they call it the status quo. And I do not consider it discrimination in any healthy (or unhealthy) sense.

tax...As far as proving that gay marriage would be beneficial, obviously there's no economic study that can prove it because it hasn't BEEN legal anywhere in the world (except for the Netherlands, and now Canada).

s...Maybe I should have said a proposal proving this using sound economic, social modeling.

Tax...But if marriage itself is seen as a positive good on strictly economic, social terms, it certainly stands to reason that marriages between gays would provide roughly the same benefits, does it not?

s...Absolutely not. HETEROSEXUAL marriage is seen as positive and good...primarily because it is the paradigm of choice for procreateing and raising children. Homosexual marriage confers no similar benefits to society that I can see. Nor is it even marriage, marriage is defined by thousands of years of human behaviour as a male/female interaction...homosexuals cannot claim the label, and are not entitled to apply it to themselves or their relationships, they don't qualify. I am unwilling to alter the definition of marriage, regaedless of what we do legally, if we do, then the word no longer has any useful meaning, might as well call it "going steady"...there is absolutely no point to marriage if the possibility of children does not exist. Obviously some heterosexual marriages involve infertile couples, or a very small number where both partners absolutely have no intention of ever reproducing, so they enjoy the advantages of the marital paradigm...but even then, there are strong psychological consequences because the possibility of children exists...this is something that will never apply to homosexual unions, it is a reality of our genetics.

tax...Wouldn't gays in stable, committed relationships be far less likely to be out at clubs, boozing it up, getting into trouble? Far more likely to save for retirement? To buy a home? To join community organizations?

s...??? Your point? They can do that now. Marriage is not going to make them any more or less responsible then they allready are.

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,297
Z
Member
Offline
Member
Z
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,297
It's interesting that people here, (of all places), believe that we can legislate fidelity, marriage, or our feelings...

I am so tiered of this whole things about ‘feelings’. People use feelings as the way to justify infidelity and all sorts of other bad behavior. They do this as thought ‘feelings’ are the most important thing in this entire world. While it is important that spouses care for each other and preferable that they are passionately in love, it is also true that feelings ebb and flow during a life long marriage. What tides us through in those times is another form of love. It’s called responsibility, caring for our spouse and our children and so forth, living up to our promises. Now that’s love of an enduring kind. It is also a form of passion.

Feelings of love and butterflies are an absolutely wrong reason to make life choices…. Like having affairs. Though I know of no good reason for having one.

Marriage is already legislated… or defined by law. Every state has a law that defines what a marriage is, who can marry whom, what each spouses responsibility is, the ownerships of joint and separate assets, and so forth. If you do not believe me find the family status for your state. I’ve read the ones for my state. The marriage laws in most state discriminate against many groups and individuals… for example brothers and sisters cannot marry each other, a minimum age for consent is set, polygamy is not allowed.

Discrimination is not in and of itself a bad thing. We all discriminate all the time. When you decide to eat corn instead of peas you are discriminating against peas.

When we treat murderers, rapists, pedophiles, thieves, etc as criminals we are discriminating. They loose some of their civil rights. For example a felon, even after paying their debt to society looses the right to vote. They become a sort of quasi citizen.

I heard a news story today of a 28 year old man who have lead the police to the body of a young lady he killed at a concert. Apparently he strangled/suffocated her to quiet her screams while he raped her. This ‘man’ had spent 16 months in prison for molesting a 3 (yes three) year old child. Why this man was not give the death penalty or life imprisonment to start with is beyond me.

We discriminate with the laws that say that a sex offender must register in their community with the police. By doing this we are discriminating. IMHO this is a very good form of discrimination as it protects potential future victims. Too bad our courts do not have the guts to do the right thing and put these people away forever. And as you might imagine convicted pedophiles and rapist all over the county are up in arms about how their civil rights are infringed on and how they are being discriminated against.

Some states used to have laws against inter-racial and perhaps inter-religion marriages. Those have, I believe, been removed in all of the states (in the USA). They were removed because they were a bad form of discrimination. Nor is normal behavior or people across all ethnic/racial groups to intermarry. It’s been happening all over the world since the beginning of time. And sex between interracial couples is a natural act because children are born from the union… the species is propagated.

Sure it is true that no one can stop another from committing adultery if they so choose. It is a free choice. So are many other destructive, hurtful and evil acts. Infidelity, theft, rape and murder are all exercised based on free CHOICE. Does not make any of them right. Nor does is mean that they should not be prosecuted.

There used to be consequences for adultery.. for both the WS and the OP. Most states have repealed those laws… in my opinion because those who repealed them wanted to be free to commit adultery. If there were legal/civil penalties for adultery OP’s might be less likely to engage in an affair. And perhaps many WS would be less likely to also. Why do I say this? Because in our society there are few if any barriers to adultery. By having no barriers and no punishment for it, our society is saying that adultery is OK.

We legislate morality all the time… our laws are a codification of morality. Our constitution is the same. They state very clearly what our moral and ethical beliefs are.

Sure laws against jay-walking have not thing to do with morality.. they are about safety. But laws against murder, rape, child molestation, etc. are based on ancient moral codes (religious and otherwise) that have developed in our society over centuries.

There are laws that say we cannot discriminate against people for the sexual orientation. So homosexuals are protected by these laws in their jobs, homes, and in society at large.

Any of the benefits that homosexuals will gain from rewriting the laws that define heterosexual marriages to include them can be obtained from laws already on the books and from contracts such as powers of attorney; both legal and medical will cover all of this. Two people can also come up with a contract of their own to stipulate any darn thing they want to. Wills can be used to transfer assets at death.

We hear the horror stories of a gay person passing away and their family taking everything with no regard to the partner. Well if the two people involved had drawn up the proper legal documents then this could not have happened. The same issues exist for any couple who lives together unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual.

The issue is not if morality can be governed, but which moral issues are to be governed. For each of us the answer can be different. That is where the debate is. For someone to act as though anyone who does not agree with them is stupid, ignorant, and a zealot will certainly not win any arguments.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> sorry folks but even a dirty low down cheat has the right to be just that if they're so inclined. we may not like it but our very way of life demands that we tolerate it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sure they have the ‘right’ to cheat. But we do not have to tolerate it at all. I divorced my previous husband because I will not be married to a cheat. I have ended relationships with ‘friends’ and family members who were cheating and would not end the affair. They can do what they please, but I nor anyone else has to tolerate it.

Where the law no longer defines infidelity as wrong, people can still make the stance by standing up to infidelity, by ostracizing an adulterer (WS and OP) as long as they choose to continue the affair.

Those whose behavior injures their family and society at large should be discriminated against, shunned and ostracized. That is one of the ways society has always protected itself. Sure we need to extend redemption to people… but redemption is greatly different from tolerance of all deviant, evil and hurtful behavior.

I believe that those who are seeking marriage for homosexuals are seeking more then simply getting the right to inheritance, medical care, etc. Most of the larger companies allow ‘partners’ to be included on health insurance. I am sure that many of the smaller ones do too. I believe they are seeking legitimacy… that they as a couple are equivalent to a heterosexual couple in all ways. And this is the question. Are they equivalent in all ways? I do not believe they are.

If we are to set aside the original definition of marriage and say that it is not only for heterosexual couples and that it is not for the propagation of our species in a protected family environment. If we are going to say that things change, society has changed and this is the right thing. Then perhaps we should look at the entire institution of marriage. Does it even work anymore today? With so many divorces and infidelity. Why have it at all? If there is not such thing as right or wrong, or sin, or what ever you want to call it. Then what is wrong with infidelity? People cheat because it feels good. Because they are in love and from much of what I am reading here… if it feels good and it is love, and between consenting adults then it is good.

Why do we have to change it so that homosexuals can marry? Why not just change it so that there is no marriage? Or make infidelity celebrated?

Where do we draw the line and why?

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,868
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,868
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Chris -CA123:
<strong>The intolerance for other beliefs and points of view shown here is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ,
Where does Jesus say to be toleraant of all behavior?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I never said or even implied that anyone should be tolerant of any/all behavior; only of the right of others to have their own beliefs and points of view, including the behavior they consider appropriate.

I may be in serious disagreement with gay marriages, but that does not mean I don't respect someone else's right to a different opinion or belief. And I hold that belief to be much more in line with Christ's teachings than the imposition of our own beliefs on others, or stating that our beliefs are right and others are wrong.

This country was created precisely because people were tired of being forced to accept others' beliefs, and wanted the right to their own. How sad it would be if we now turn around and impose upon others the same things our ancestors fled 200+ years ago!

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
Hey Suf:
On the "fairness" question, perhaps we're arguing at cross-purposes, or over different conceptions of the term. When I say that the government must be "fair," I mean that it may not discriminate against its citizens on an arbitrary basis, i.e., that when it DOES make distinctions between its citizens (you may marry, you may not: you may get a driver's license, you may not), it must do so for a rational reason that is related to a legitimate government purpose. What it may not do is come up with irrational, arbitrary reasons for making classifications among its citizens. That is absolute black-letter Equal Protection jurisprudence that has been the same for a hundred years. The burden is ALWAYS on the government to explain its actions by offering justifications for them, and for the courts then to decide whether those justifications are constitutionally sufficient. Accordingly, it is absolutely clear that (to use my "silly" example) the government may NOT deny all blue-eyed people a marriage license (or a driver's license, or any other government benefit) without a legitimate reason for doing so.

If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that the fact that marriage has up to now been recognized only between a man and a woman ipso facto means that the government has a rational reason related to a legitimate government purpose to say that ONLY heterosexuals may marry. That just doesn't follow. By this logic, the mere fact that African-Americans had been slaves in the early part of the country's history, and were denied equal status under the law through the first part of this century, reflects the "race paradigm" that meant that the government could continue to require that they drink at separate water fountains, eat at different restaurants and so forth. Habit and custom are NOT, and never have been, sufficient on their own to justify government action or inaction. The notion of equality and liberty are evolving concepts to be sure, but our Constitution, our courts, and our legislators have always acknowledged that they exist to some extent outside what is considered the habit or custom of the day. Rather, they are ideals that we are supposed to constantly strive to achieve.

That said, the question becomes, again, what is the legitimate government purpose in refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry? What is the societal danger lurking within such marriages that justifies the government's refusal to recognize them? You never really address that, other than to darkly mutter about "distressing outcomes". Further, the only societal good you apparently see in heterosexual marriage is that it is a way to foster procreation and raising of children. But can't gay males adopt? Or lesbian couples have a child through in vitro fertilization? What facts can you point to that only specifically heterosexual marriages are "better" for the raising of children? Just because that's generally how it's been done up to now? As I said above, not good enough from a legal perspective.

Really, your argument is just one of power. We are in the majority, and this is how we like to do it, and if you want to do it a different way, than prove to me that it benefits me. In the first place, that is precisely why the equal protection clause is IN the constitution -- to protect the minority from the whims of the majority when those whims do not have a foundation that is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. But again, even if the burden of proof WERE on me, I think that the arguments that gay marriage benefits society are strong. When people marry, they stand in front of their neighbors and claim responsibility for each other, and society then recognizes that relationship by transferring responsibility for those people to each other. By contrast, gays can live together all they want, and be as informally committed to each other as they wish, but without government acknowledgement that the relationship is special, is committed, is excusive, there will always be something missing. And there's just no reason that you've offered so far that justifies that absence.

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,508
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,508
will comment more later but there is this..

tax...Really, your argument is just one of power. We are in the majority, and this is how we like to do it, and if you want to do it a different way, than prove to me that it benefits me.

s...Yep.

tax...In the first place, that is precisely why the equal protection clause is IN the constitution -- to protect the minority from the whims of the majority when those whims do not have a foundation that is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

s...But who decides what whims and how protected taxman.....the majority. *scratching my head* I am not sure of your point, the power holders always make the decisions, they always will...right? So if you want the majority (which are the de facto power holders in a democratic system) to accomodate a minority position, then you have to convince them...right?

The only reasons we have the concept of minority protection is because the MAJORITY thinks (correctly IMO) that such a policy is in the majorities best interest (which it is). But the minority cannot demand this, in fact they cannot demand anything at all, they have no power to do so, they exist at the pleasure of the majority. Such is life in our universe. Force rules, and force (for the present) resides in the democratic will of the majority of individuals who make up the american system of govt. We have tried other paradigms, monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies ...they all fall, when the majority of individuals act in concert to defeat them. Democracy is no different, a minority cannot use it to force their issue, they have no means to do so... Which brings us back to my point....gay advocates adopt a risky strategy when they demand "rights", their case and life is not compelling to most heterosexuals. But if they are to prevail, there vest shot is trying to make a case that it will benefit society to allow them some of the benefits of "marriage".

<small>[ July 21, 2003, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,047
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,047
Mec-aleca-mec-meca-hiney-ho <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> (under used razz for mr. BC)

This "ammendment" doesn't do anything to save my marriage. Looks like a poorly disguised attempt to segragate a section of our country from comitting themselves legally to each other. Hell while we're at it lets add an ammentment banning abortion...that'll show'em. I don't need the goverment trying to "savemymarriage.com" I want that in more capeable hands.


This thread has seemed to touch a couple of nerves with some people. I am a christian. As a Christian I am commanded to love my neighbor as myself. And I do that.

Hate the sin, not the sinner.
For me and what I believe, I will keep that to myself. Hey I am a southern baptist that likes to dance, so I am in no position to pass judgement on anyone. I'll wait til I am dead and find out answers to all the questions I have now. The whole gay people go to hell thing, did Adam name the dinosaurs, and the less filling-tastes great debate.

My morals, ethics and religious beliefs are mine and I don't think I have the right to impose them on anyone. Cliche' to follow...Some of my best friends are gay. If someone wants to get married, let them get married. Age and mandatory premarital counseling should be added to the list of requirements.

<small>[ July 21, 2003, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: d_rose ]</small>

Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 8,016
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 8,016
If someone wants to get married, let them get married. Age and mandatory premarital counseling should be added to the list of requirements.
So it'sokay for them to get married but as long as they meet the "age & counseling" requirements?
So why are you recommending anything, since anything goes as far as who gets married?

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Fordude 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 1,116 guests, and 67 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Mike69, petercgeelan, Zorya, Reyna98, Nofoguy
71,829 Registered Users
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2019, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5