MEDC has spoken. He has given all of us his opinion. It is HIS opinion and he is entitled to hold whatever opinions he wishes. But I am fairly certain that a LOT of MB members would disagree with his opinion. Furthermore, he makes it clear that he bases his opinions and judgments on his FEELINGS. He is entitled to do so, as so many (such as Wayward Spouses) have done in order to rationalize and justify their decisions and choices. In his judgment, "married" doesn't MEAN married if someone is in the process of getting a divorce. An interesting viewpoint, but why go through the process of getting a divorce if it really "never mattered and never will" so that someone IS "free" to date and/or marry someone else?

So what is it that might be driving MEDC's vendetta against certain "Affair Marriage" members posting on GQ II and MB in general? He reveals this "difference" of opinion, that is decidedly against MB positions in his following posts.




Civil laws are NOT what we have been discussing, and MEDC knows that. Perhaps that is WHY he is so adamantly against a biblically based position, he wants to make up his own rules as he goes along. As long as MEDC agrees with it, "it's" right, if he disagrees with "it," it's wrong. End of discussion, MEDC is the highest authority and the only arbiter of what is correct and what is incorrect.




And here we have your definitive judgment MEDC. Nevermind that this position, this criteria that you apply, is decidedly OPPOSED to both the Scripture (God's position) and to MB (ever hear of Emotional Affairs MEDC?).

Adultery, as most of us know or have learned, includes far more that just sex, or vaginal sex if he wants to put forth the Pennsylvania "standard" as THE standard of what constitutes adultery, and thereby an Affair.

He can continue to use ad hominem attacks on me because of my belief in Christians following God regardless of our personal "feelings." But it is interesting to see the real MEDC and WHY he chooses to harass others who hold a differing opinion on this very difficult and very sensitive subject.

Double standard? Not even close. Adultery is ONLY having sex and dating while still married is NOT adultery or an affair. MEDC has spoken
Perhaps a few others may also disagree with him. Perhaps not. Each member will have to choose for himself or herself.

Are you really hearing what you are saying MEDC, or is your emotional fog so think it filters out all but your own opinion?

Mind you, although heartpain may have ticked the poll option marked " didn't read or understand the question but ranted anyway" he / she is certainly right by inference - this hasn't evolved into the most mature and progressive discussion has it ? Lots of shouting. Lots of not bothering to read the basic premises on either side.

Perhaps this issue is too emotive to discuss ? And again as HP reminded us unless we agree a process between us, that Dr H doesn't disagree with, Dr H and the mods aren't going to impose a new procedure on us.

So we're left with many folks being avoidably hurt and some folks not caring about that or about the majority of voters against that and posting to A-marriages in GQ2 anyway because they want to.

Not good really.But what to do ? Its a standoff and it is actually encouraging support for the A-marriages posters despite the quite surprising antipathy towards that shown by the poll respondents.

hmm. A strange happenstance for sure.

If the above are true it means that I have never committed infidelity… <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> Especially since I’ve never “dated” the XOM – not even for a cup of coffee. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Dating while married (even if the couple is separated and in the process of divorce) is adultery…emotional adultery at least.

Suzet

You identify the underlying problem here.
Everybody is hitting each other with their opinions. backup up by state legislature, one bible dogma or another, life epxerience or conflict avoidance.
The temptation to hit and counter hit each other with these has overshadowed the issue I tried to raise.

If Christians of one flavour decide one sort of a-marriage is OK to help as its legitimised by their preferred dogma they're happy but the other flavour of christians, other faiths and atheists are likely to not be as they'll have their own agenda.

The "mb-liberals" want to help all comers, inter species and intergalactic marriages probably and the "mb-conservatives" want A-apouses flogged weekly and thrown out of this house.

And quietly, while all this d1ck-stetching happens , broken hearted people who fear an A-marriage as their worst nightmare and who are too broken after d-day to discriminate in what they read just see that names they respect are helping a "marriage" that is like their worst nightmare and are disheartened. Also entitled WS and OPs see ten year, thirty year a-marriages being legitimised by the same respected posters and purr and cluck at their course of action.

This is actually proved if you read the links I provided earlier. Its not opinion.

* sigh *

We as a board are not mature enough to fix this, as i had hoped we were. It takes only one poster to help an a-marriage in GQ2 for the disheartening message to be sent. Just ONE. and there will always be ONE , unless there is a a directive from Dr H.

And we will certainly not get such a directive.

So my words have been twisted and my message lost or misunderstood. Either that or some folks value helping the few A-marriages in public more than they value protecting the hearts of the many broken folks who will be hurt by their actions.

I genuinely don't know what to do now.

Typical self-righteous egotism...I read the topic subject, your initial post *and* the poll questions...I found the entire lot smacking of censorship and megalomania. There wasn't a poll option for that.

Since your limited perception blocked any understanding of my post, here it is in a nutshell...It really doesn't matter whether you or some majority of posters here approve of affair marriages or not. You certainly have the right to believe in whatever you want, but unless you are an administrator, moderator or in some way have a financial stake in the board, you have no right to say who belongs and who doesn't.


I certainly didn't remind you or anyone else of *that*!! You know how the board currently operates. This thread has already been noticed by "powers that be*. If they decide they want to change policy, they will.

As far as I am concerned, the various people running this board have done a wonderful job keeping everything on an even keel with no preferential treatment.

I still maintain that success in this will result in more "exclusion". Make sure that all of the requisite qualifications are on the registration form so that "undesirables" will be discouraged from joining/reading the boards.

Some dialogue from Frank Herbert's "Children of Dune" should give you, BP, and some others here, something to reflect on:

yes Suzet.... I realize this. I was speaking of the LEGAL definition of adultery. Legally speaking, you did not commit adultery and every state has their LEGAL definition of this act.

I recognize the chasm between what is legal here and what is moral.

HP

It really doesn't matter whether you or some majority of posters here approve of affair marriages or not.

I already knew that

You certainly have the right to believe in whatever you want
Thanks
but unless you are an administrator, moderator or in some way have a financial stake in the board, you have no right to say who belongs and who doesn't.

I already knew that too. Which is why I haven't suggested who should or should not belong on the boards. Not once. Be angry at me for many things including my "typical self-righteous egotism" if you wish, but please not for things I have not said, done, inferred or claimed.

Why do you think divirced posters have their own board HP ? Do you think perhaps it was a recognition that it might not be the most marrigebuilding or encouraging thing to discuss on GQ2 ?

I would have A-marriages discussd in a less trafficked place than GQ2 for the same reason. No more. No histrionics. No banning. No shunning.

Everything else is what you assume I said not what I said.

There is evidence ( posted as a link in page zillion of this thread) of WS taking great comfort from innocent support of A-marriages and also of BS and FWS being downhearted.

I thought it might be a good idea to discuss and help a-marriges in a quieter place but wanted to find out what people thought so I did a poll.

Everything else has beenplaced in my mouth from other people's prejudices.

Hate me for the truth, not you half-read version of it.

I'm wondering why you thought the board would reach consensus on this. We haven't really reached consensus on anything else. This is too diverse a group of people to really expect such consensus.


The moderators (Justuss) have made that clear. People who want to engage in that type of discussion are welcome to do so on this board as far as the administration is concerned. And, people who want to try to achieve consensus (such as yourself ) are welcome to do that, as well.


It seems you've twisted a few things around, yourself, if you're honest. I don't know why, exactly, but inter-species marriage always seems to come up as what "liberals" want whenever there's a disagreement on where lines should be drawn. I fully understand the concept of a slippery slope argument, but I've never even once seen an advocacy group for inter-species marriage. Has anyone on this thread actually lamented the lack of discussion of marriage between man and dog?


I think this is probably true. I understand your arguments and I'll be honest, I'm thinking about them. I haven't weighed in on this thread because I have a slightly different take on the subject which might actually draw me to the same conclusion that you have reached (via a different path).

This is a discussion board. It's annoying when you're trying to have a discussion (about whatever) which has been ruled appropriate by the moderators and people keep threadjacking that discussion. So, on the one hand, since the moderators have spoken and said "These threads belong here please allow unfettered discussion to take place" then it seems to me that people should respect that to be a good netizen. This thread, bob_pure, is exactly where I think the discussion ABOUT the discussion should take place - so kudos to you for providing it.

One might think, once Justuss posted the moderators position on that thread (this thread, and the other thread), their decision would have rendered the rest of the disagreement moot. Apparently not.

I do wish the discussion would remain about opinions on the topic rather than personal attacks and conflating agreement or opinion about one thing with the opinion or agreement about something entirely different (ie. the logical fallacy: guilt by association) wouldn't take place. Just because someone wants to help out an 28 year old affair marriage which produced children, doesn't mean that person doesn't care about BS's and doesn't care about affairs and society. They obviously just don't care the same way YOU care. It reminds me of the arguments thrown around that anyone who wants the war in Iraq to end do not support military troops - it's a vacuous argument. The two conditions are not, in any way, mutually exclusive.

However, it does seem to be a disruptive topic. I haven't felt I have anything constructive to contribute to MFZ's thread. I didn't feel EN was a good board for it but I also knew what would happen here - though a good argument can be definitely be made that this board is the best equipped to handle affairs. That does not mean this is the best board to handle affair marriages, though - if for no other reason, than the pure disruption they cause. And yes, Bob, I will also acknowledge your point - for the pain or encouragement they might cause people who are fogged out and might hope their affair marraige will go the distance.


Perhaps, since so many people feel so strongly about this, it is time for the board collective to request that moderators make a new forum - or convert an existing, little used one. While they're doing that, perhaps we can also make it a safe place for WS's to go - another hotly debated topic. That way there is a place for them where they can have thier discussions unthreadjacked by freshly wounded BS's. It can be a place for people who would like to help with MB principles but aren't still reeling from open wounds can triage some of the more disturbing cases - as has been mentioned here, perhaps an ICU type environment.

My argument lies along less emotive paths than yours does, Bob (which doesn't make it better or worse imho). My argument is that discussion is the purpose of this board. That which makes the discussions impossible (constant threadjacking or "calling out" other posters and chastising them because they participate where one would not) does not further discussion and disrupts the purpose of the message board. I think your idea of separating out the two discussion areas is a good one.

Mys

P.S. To be clear, just because my argument for separation is different from yours does not mean that I lack compassion for the hurt for BS's. I just happen to feel empathy for all sides of this -- MFZ and jj who obviously do need help and support AND also the BS's who may be bothered by such discussion. I think that may be part of your point, as well.

Bob,

I agree with you that the underlying message of this thread had been missed. I can totally see the value and purpose of this thread and what you had in mind with starting it.

My opinion on this:

Although I DO believe that people in AM’s are worthy of help, guidance, compassion and empathy IF they truly repent and take responsibility for their past actions…and although I also believe the cycle of infidelity and a wayward mindset can end without necessarily divorcing the AM spouse (I’ve posted my opinion about this on another thread last year), I do however agree with you that this board is probably not the right and appropriate place for such people to seek help and advice…simply because (as you and others have pointed out) it can be hurtful to new vulnerable BS and FWS and give false hope and justification for WS’s and OP’s who are in a wayward mindset and want to continue their A… And although I truly belief that the posters who give help and advice to people in AM’s have pure and good intentions by doing so (I don’t doubt that for ONE minute), I can also see how such attempts can potentially hurt vulnerable posters and lurkers and send out a wrong message (although it is not intended that way).

Therefore, I think the best solution for such people (as you has suggested) is to post on a quieter forum on MB where it have less chance to hurt new vulnerable posters, but where pro’s can still follow and continue to post to them. This will also help the people in need for advice and help in an AM to receive it without all the interruptions, debates etc. I think this will be a win/win situation for all.

Take care.

A level headed post myschae. Thank you.

My inter-species comment is a piece of hyperbole that is now ebedded in the middle of one of these long argument threads. I asked what " marriages " would NOT be considered viable to support on GQ2 : same sex, underage,Paedo, interspecies in a rising rate of ludicrousness.

My point was a line has to be drawn somewhere.

By using that without the full context does look like twisting, I'll give you that.

I predict that nothing will change. Some valued posters will leave the boards. People will smugly continue to help A-mariages having " won" wherever they like and vulnerable people will be needlessly discouraged from working towards recovery.

* sigh *

A little busy right now, BK, but I wanted you to know that I have read your post. I have tried many times previously to give you my reasonings and my criteria, but I'll promise to do this for right now: I will consider your latest request in the sincerity you state and seriously consider taking the time to respond again. I don't see this as a "frivolous" thing or yet another "set up" that is looking to use whatever I might say (as has been done by some, for example, by totally twisting the response I gave once to Bob Pure's hypothetical situation of when and/or where a FORMER rapist might be "counseled"), I believe you when you say you are sincerely seeking to understand what you may perceive as a "different" opinion of someone.

So I will give it consideration as it will undoubtedly take a fair amount of time to address your question.

Mys,

Thank you so much for your post. You have expressed my thoughts exactly on every point. You have a talent for reaching the heart of an argument without invalidating anyone else's views. I appreciate your diplomacy and wisdom.

Bob:

Yes it is somewhat of a standoff.

And unless the owners of the forum choose to get involved and set an exact standard, it will continue to be. Perhaps they have chosen to stay out of it is because this whole issue doesn't really have, at the end of the day, two sides, for and against. It is hard to have a standard, black and white, set in stone, if there are exceptions.

Even some of those who are most against affair marriage help here have made at least one exception. I saw this with my very own eyeballs. Once there is an exception, then there is room for further exception by individual choice. Yes, exceptions prove the rule, but who is to say what the exception is? Oh, I know that plenty of us are more than willing to set a standard, but reality is that we don't have that power. And I am not at all sure that I want anyone but the Harleys to set that standard.

I asked questions before I made up my mind because your initial post led me to asking questions. You answered my questions with practical proof I could see, touch and feel, thank you. So I modified my initial, gut opinion and here I am based on what I see, not what I guess or what I feel. I have learned from this site that feelings are subject to individual variations except the broad brush that affairs are emotional train wrecks for everyone and anyone with almost no exceptions.

Here is what I can see and read with my very own eyeballs:

By doing nothing save for Justuss' post, the Harleys allow those in Affair marriages to post here for help.

By doing nothing save for Justuss' post, the Harleys allow those who oppose Affair marriages to post their opinion of that Affair marriage so long as they refrain from name calling and such. Opinions, in my opinion (lol) DO mitigate harm. Maybe not the best way to so mitigate but there you go.

Even some of those who are the most vociferous in opposition to Affair marriage make exception(s). Everyone KNOWS what their standard is, but not everyone appears to have the SAME standard.

The next thing I see is that people who come here for help get referred to the Harleys or they get help or they don't get help, all as the case may be. I also know by personal experience that people sometimes get their feelings hurt, their shaky marriages damaged, or not helped at all and there is NO Affair marriage as part of the dynamics. It isn't just Affair marriages and affairees that could be the source of pain here. One case in particular sticks in my mind and that is Heartsore's but I know of others including my own situation at one point in time. So I conclude that people cannot be shielded 100% from hurt or harm. Yet I agree we should not do things that make it worse.

On balance, more people get helped than hurt (very tiny minority I hope) and that is the way it is in life and in here.

I believe that your original post and subsequent debate has made a difference. It did for me. I believe that your post underscores that this is a site that is pro marriage and that active affairees will only be welcome under very exacting standards. And that exacting standard is as it always has been; you won't get much of anything here that really encourages active affairs, period, end of discussion. Well maybe not the end of discussion, but you know what I mean. It is no surprise that this is Harley's standard and we follow it. I think there is near universal agreement that following Harley's standard is a good thing, the right thing to do.

I believe that "Some" affair marriages will continue to be helped here through individual choice.

I believe that this debate has served to mitigate some of the rock throwing because the debate provided an opportunity for all to air out their positions and differences. I am disappointed but not surprised that people took this opportunity to yet one more time debate old differences that really have nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

The first subject of this post, lest we forget it, is whether supporting affair marriage could hurt the betrayed or encourage the betrayers. The vast majority (70-80%) said yes.

The second subject of this thread is what to do with Affair marriages. A somewhat majority (68%) said help them here, there, but do help them. This seems to me to be contradictory, unless you consider that even some of those most opposed to helping affair marriages seemingly allow exceptions.

Bob, you said:


I am going to politely disagree with you. First of all, I hope nobody will leave, but that is a hope not a disagreement.

Where I disagree with you is that if I choose to make an exception (seemingly allowed by many), then I will not do so smugly. Maybe some will, but not me. So that was a broad brush and thus a DJ. And I don't think anyone has really "Won" anything. Given that by inference from this thread that those of us who so choose to be against Affair marriages may post our own opinions right alongside those attempting to help a given Affair marriage, will serve to mitigate the potential damage to those who are working towards recovery. That is a good thing, in my opinion (sorry MYS). And I think your thread and poll has served to underline that both types of posts are acceptable within the general TOS of this forum and board.

So I do think a positive has come from this thread and I thank you.


This is probably the best overall solution from my point of view, yours and others, but unless the Harley's choose to go that route, it isn't going to happen. And frankly, I am not willing to seek to impose my standards on the Harleys or walk away because they choose to do nothing. They are the pros, not me. And so far, for me, their solutions work.

Larry

Larry

You make several good points. Everyone has a criterion for what consider to be a helpable a-amarriage and an unhelpable one.

We can never get consensus because hardly any two folks will have the same criteria as to what is going to send the wrong message to the boards.

I mean you could have "actual" A marriages - where affairees end their previous marriage(s) to marry each other , and "technical" a marriages where protagonists were undergoing divorce proceedings when they met and eventually married, but as you say , then EVERYONE is somebody's "technical" exception to the rule. Folks didn't see my point as clearly as I did because there is no commonly agreed description of what is an "affair mariage".

This didn't occur to me until you pointed it out. I was wondering why people couldn't see what was obvious to me. It just wasn't and isn't obvious to them.

Thanks again. I fear that means there can be no "democratic" solution. Even if a huge majority agree that a-marriages on GQ2 is a bad thing, it doesn't matter if we can't agree what an A-marriage actually IS let alone how we should help them.

When I first came here as a new BS more than anything I needed hope my marriage meant something more than just "until someone better comes along".

I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt if I had come across a thread trying to help strengthen an arraige I would have been hurt even more. I would have dismissed MB as just another secular marriage-is-not-for-life site.

I would have learned, while in my very hurt and confused state, that this site speaks out of both sides of it's mouth and actually whisperers support for the fruit of successful affairs. I tell you truly, in my early BS fog I would have recoiled from this site as if from OM himself.

Even now, if MB does indeed intend to openly support affair marriages then I cannot in conscience remain here. No more than I could participate in TOW.

with prayers,

I would have thought that this entire debate would have ended with Justuss's comments way back on page 8:


This was the clearest guidance I've seen on this site yet.

Constructive advice, or no response at all.

They're not making another place for people to post...

They're not telling people that they need to go somewhere else...

I don't understand the need for further debate...a moderator has provided guidance on policy, and how we should deal with the situation.

What's left to debate?

Owl,

I agree...Justuss is awesome.

"constuctive advice and suggestions"

EXACTLY what Zog needs and is getting from me.

Mr. Wondering

Up top on this site it reads:

"MARRIAGE BUILDERS
Building Marriages to Last a Lifetime"

Which one is the question.

[color:"red"] Myschae [/color]

I smiled reading this. Thank you !



<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I have to agree with you, MrW...

At first when I read your advice, it seemed like a lot of the other judgemental stuff I've been watching...

...then I went back and read it a second time.

While I don't agree with all that you say, I can agree that what you provided was constructive, and potentially useful for him. Maybe not pleasant...but this ISN'T a pleasant situation. Good points.