Bob, I understand that is how your bias on this subject colors your interpretation.

However, Spectacles was an OW LONG before the JJ thread. Several times she was called out, and called to task by many members for her stance, including being asked WHY she was bothering to post on MB. I, for one, never even wrote her one post to my recollection. Can you hazard a guess as to why I didn't? That she chose to say "amen" to a post I made to someone else regarding forgiveness IN CHRIST is immaterial. I have no idea if she is a believer, though I doubt it. I have no recollection of her ever even stating what she believed in.

ANYONE who is in that sort of mindset can, and usually will, find anything they can to CONTINUE justifying in their minds what they have already chosen to do. It had, and has, nothing to do with the JJ thread or any of my posts. They certainly don't need any "help" from any post on MB to a completely different person in a completely different situation (i.e., truly repentant of their past poor choices and seeking to more surrendered to their Lord), and such comments DO NOT cause them to be OW, or Wayward Spouse for that matter.

One more time, Bob, I UNDERSTAND your position and your argument. I disagree with it on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.




I have to admit that I don't recall 3 OW's, but I'm sure you are correct. If you could reference them I could do a little research, or you could provide links to the specific threads you are referring to. I'm assuming that Spectacles is one of the 3, but I don't recall the other three Other Women.

TA

Alphin wasn't married when she quit on her BF. Thats cheating not adultery. Cheating is bad, but its not adultery uness you are married.

If a fiance cheats Dr Harley advises to quit while the betrayed person is ahead. No recovery attempt. I would agree with that. He states in the basic concepts part of this site that "trying out" many potential spouses before you choose one to marry is a good thing ( although not promiscuously obviously !). It os marrige that is the big commitment not living together.

I have no doubt that many posters have marriages that began in affairs - but if they do not disclose this :

1) We can't know cos they haven't told us
2) it does not have the demonstrable anti-marriagebuilding effect on bystanders just by its situation.

As for me , It takes a lot out of me to invest in those cases where I do. It is information hard earned and offered in prayer. If a petitioner lies to me about their circumstances it invalidates my advice AND , frankly, insults me.

I would withdraw my support at once and suggest that the cas ebe moved to a quieter place so as to avoid any potential anti-marrigebuilding effects.

ne more time, Bob, I UNDERSTAND your position and your argument.

Sir forgive me, but it is not aparrent from your replies to me that you do understand my position else you would not advocate assisting ANY a-marriages on GQ 2. You would differentiate by case ( saved or not for example).

I say that evidence sugests that ANY a-marriage encourages wayward behaviour just by it being suppoted on GQ2. I have written ad nauseum on this now FH.

And to abet only saved A-marriges is to select to hurt only those BS and FWS who are not Christians or those who quite credibly believe a competing theological dogma on their status.

That is quite unnacceptable to me.

We will never agree with each other over this issue of supporting A-marriages on GQ2.

TA,

Please note that my above quote includes "knowingly".

If a poster I had been supporting eventually disclosed their marriage is an AFFAIR MARRIAGE, I would end all support of them. Pretty simple really.

Jo

I doubt very much I have helped save, truly save, any affair marriages during my time posting here at MB.

Affair Marriages aren't savable using MB principles.

Sure we may help the lying BS save their affair relationship for a bit. But the techniques won't have much staying power. The best they can hope to achieve is a quick jump back into their romantic fantasy by adding drama and excitement to it trying to do these plans.

But in the end...they quite nearly all end and, if not, they continue on in misery.

I doubt very much any affair marriages are going to recovery properly from a affair. No way are both spouses going to buy into the MB program. It's not possible.

If they come here and lie...it is only them that will suffer [more] in the long run.

I'm reminded of a friend whose wife had an affair with the male counterpart of their best couple friends. They had hung out for years, oblivious and complacent to the fact that these couple friends, seeming so in love, were, in fact, an affair marriage. Their kids hung out together as well and they lived quite nearby. So after the affair is revelled and exposed and busted up. What happens a year later. The OM's affair wife is apologizing for her husband, they've "recovered" though they did absolutely nothing to really recover except deny it was that bad and bury their heads in the sand. Repeated requests for NO CONTACT are denied by both OM and his wife. OM stalks out BH's kids, OM stalks WW (now very FWW) in grocery stores and around town. OM even calls my BH friend asking to be friends again. OM misses him and the affair is apparently water under the bridge. They are flabergasted how they can be so mean as to not resume their friendship.

Time does not clear fog. At some point, when you stay in the fog too long, you can never again reclear your thinking without a LONG HARD ONEROUS INDIVIDUAL JOURNEY. Divorce is the BEST option.

Simply...affair marriages do not need to be banished at all. They need to be referred to the divorced/divorcing board. They need to be referred to the Harleys for professional help. Compassion calls for them to be told MB won't work for them. It just won't, whether they lie about their status or not.

Mr. Wondering

[b] [color:"purple"] THE solution of choice in my opinion! [/color]

This is almost verbatim my exact situation. Down to the last detail.

At the end, here, and will probably kill the thread, but here's my thoughts:

Does supporting A-marriages on GQ 2 hurt Vulnerable readers?
Yes.

*Caveat: Even though my current marriage did not break up marriages in the traditional sense (both divorces filed, then-spouses had moved on to others before we met each other)... I feel that to glorify how my relationship began, before the divorces were final, is unethical and *may be harmful* to some here. The chance of harm is enough that I mostly don't participate anymore unless it is a specific and/or unique situation and will be helpful, not harmful.

Does supporting A-marriages on GQ2 encourage wayward spouses and OPs ?

No, if what you mean is "Does it encourage AP's to marry?" Nobody in their right mind would use MB as a yardstick to measure whether or not to marry the AP.

If you mean "Does it encourage AP's already IN marriages that they can receive help here?"... then yes, it does encourage, obviously.

If affair marriages are to be supported on these boards they should:
Other ( please add your suggestion in a post)

Here's my suggestion:

Nobody should be forced to contribute in (or worse, embrace) something they ethically do NOT believe in.

It's up to the Harley's to decide what they want on their forum... and then to let us know.

FWIW: I had occasion to communicate with Steve Harley years ago, and he told me I was a welcomed, valuable member here. Again, my situation is not exactly the same as some mentioned in this thread, but I have always accepted responsibility for the fact that I rushed into a relationship that I was not legally, emotionally or ethically ready to get into... therefore, it is what I consider to be an A-marriage. Others disagree, as I have stated previously.

Thanks NB 2. Useful to have a protagonist's view.

NB_II - personally I consider your situation to be an error of judgement but not an AM. You are a valuable contributer here.

agree 100%

Oh come on Bob. I said I understand your position, I did not say that I agree with it on a 100% basis.

There, are for example, a lot of Muslims (as we discussed once before) who believe that it's okay to kill lots of people who don't agree with them. I understand their position and what they base it upon, but I don't agree with them or their chosen means to implement their position.

Neither do I agree with a blanket refusal to help someone who is in what is termed an "affair marriage." I would agree in some cases and disagree in others. It is "case by case, individual by individual.

CAN some others potentially have their feelings hurt if someone is offered help? Yes. Is that potential restricted to just "affair marriages?" No. I've had people get "offended" and "hurt" by mentioning God and God's plan for marriage. So it is NOT limited to just "affair marriages." I have been offended and hurt by comments from others sometimes, especially from some who themselves claim to be forgiven sinners in Christ Jesus.
If "offensiveness" and the potential that "Someone" might (because we can always find examples of someone who HAS been hurt or offended) be hurt by a given topic becomes the "measure of whether or not someone should post on GQ II, or any other forum for that matter, then it is time to include in the Rules of the System, what subjects can and cannot be disgussed "for the good of all." THAT list might be longer than you think.




Yes you have, and I have repeatedly said that I understand what you are saying and that I disagree with your conclusion, especially as it relates to covering ALL circumstances.

As for the "evidence" that renders your definitive conclusion, I have not seen that evidence. I have seen opinion. I have even seen the occasional post from some who agree with your contention and who are "new," or at least relatively "new." I have also seen posts from "new" or relatively "new" posters who have disagreed with your contention. Both sides on the same issue.

I contend that your conclusion is better supported by societal acceptance in general and NOT just because it happens to be seen on MB's GQ II forum. It is society, not MB or anyone trying to help someone in a current marriage that began as an adulterous marriage, that "encourages wayward behavior."




Bob, think about what you are saying. I am NOT "selecting" to hurt anyone. To those who have not accepted Christ I have the same message I always have had, "Seek ye FIRST the kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you." As much as anyone can "object" to a Christian message, I can "object" to their attempts to limit even the discussion of what God has said about any subject.

I am NOT responsible for their feelings anymore than you are. By the same token, I am NOT responsible for the reactions of people who are opposed to God and Jesus Christ as the ONLY way in which God has provided for our sins to be forgiven and for us to go to Heaven instead of our current destination without Christ, He11.

Your point that to tell someone that ALL of their sins are forgiven when they truly accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior MAY be perceived as "offensive" to some, perhaps even to many, is no excuse for NOT proclaiming the Gospel Message to anyone who sincerely is seeking answers. If others don't like that, that is their problem, not mine, for "eavesdropping" on a conversation between two other people. To the believers, their sins ARE forgiven by God, and we can do no less since God also forgave all of our sins. All Christians BEGIN living their lives for God from that point of acceptance forward. There is NO "undoing" the past, just repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, and a "changed worldview" of how one should live their remaining days on this earth.




I tend to agree with your statements, though I will "waffle" a little on the absolute of "never." I put that word choice of "never" up there along with statements like "if you cheat on me, I am 'outta here' immediately, no chance for remaining married." Circumstances and people CAN change. It is by no means a certainty, but it IS a possibility because others HAVE done so.

God bless.

FH - I'd be pretty interested in knowing what your criteria for deciding to help or not is.

I rest my case. Case-by-Case, Individual by Individual, and NOT a blanket application of the "rule" that ANYONE who marries a person they were involved with WHILE still married IS committing adultery, having an affair, and is by definition NOW in an "affair marriage."

NB II - You ARE a valuable member of MB and just as worthy of help, and of helping others you see in need, as any other member of MB. Thank you for your bravery in putting your own situation out there for potential comments, favorable and unfavorable. You are one brave lady!

God bless.

BK - why? Why would you be interested now? I have my criteria, you have yours (as you have vehemently stated on several occasions). Although I have to admit you seemingly have gone against your stated criteria in your post to NB II, so I am genuinely interested in why you seem to be at all interested in my criteria after so many denunciations of one application of my criteria.

FH I am genuinely interested in why you would support say JJ and not support MFZ. I am INTERESTED in your criteria - it's not a slam.

I have not gone against anything in my post to NBII - that would be your interpretation of my criteria for an affair marriage, not my actual criteria.

I personally do not feel that a person waiting on a decree of divorce... awaiting just the paperwork that has been filed by a cheating spouse is in fact cheating if they date. Never did... never will.

Interesting MEDC, how you choose to parse things. Dating while legally married is...what?

Marrying the person you dated while still legally married...creates what?

Very illuminating.

FH... you really have a thick head huh? You have responded to me yet again and you are and shall remain on ignore. All I see from you is... you are ignoring this user. And that's the way I like it.
Thanks for what I know were compliments though.

It's a gray area FH - particularly given the requirements for divorce vary so much from juristiction. In bible days all a husband had to do was write out a certificate of divorce.

It certainly isn't the smartest thing to do but it seems a different situation to me.