Now isn't THAT a novel concept.

I read this book when it first came out. Along with "Buyers, Renters, Freeloaders" it really rounds out Harley's total philosophy.

It is possibly his best book to date.

Does it "feel good" for you to incessantly bash and judge folks here? Methinks someone needs to take their own advice and knock off the sanctimonious screeds and get off her soap box. They're making my [censored] hurt. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />


Hopefully you really mean this, but somehow I doubt that.

I'm gonna pipe in here on the original topic of the Traditional Marriage, and a conversation I had with my oldest DD this weekend. She just got married, but in a court(she is the DD that we gave up for adoption, and there are many issuse involved with her decision of the court ceremony vs a church ceremony) She said that she now understands why many in the world, or at least our country, view marriage as throw away. She said that even though she spent over an hour at the court house, only about 5-10 minutes was spent on the actual marriage ceremony. She also commented that even most church ceremonies only last 30-45 minutes for something that is meant to be for life! Anyway, in our culture today, too many of us have NO problem with D for any reason. That's why SO many who DO remain M'd after an A and other such betrayals are looked upon as crazy for doing so! It's sad, but true. The sanctaty of MARRIAGE, as it was originally intended, has been twisted and stomped upon so much and so often, most don't even know what it really means.

When my DD told me that she was going to get M'd, I gave her a couple of the books that we do have from the Harley book list. I told her that there isn't MUCH that her birth father and I haven't been through in our M and we've survived(yes, my DH is her father) and that we are open to talk to her about any questions she may have. I think one of the better things that has come along in wedding ceremonies today is the Covenant Marriage Agreement. It talks about how important these vows are that the couple are making to eachother. My DH and I have considered having such a ceremony ourselves. AND, the Covenant that is signed(in addition to the marriage license) is often framed and displayed with respect and honor, where as the marriage license is usually tucked away in a filing cabinet somewhere. Just some food for thought.

Pep... I didn't bring up same sex marriages, someone else did. I have no idea if Harley's principles would work for them. Too me, their R's are similar to but not exactly like man/woman R. That is a whole other enchilada that I can't get into at this point in time.


"And having your FBH now meeting your ENs because he is afraid you will have another A if he doesn't is no happy marriage either. It is not loving him, even."

Aph, are you inferring that my H walks on eggshells now because he's afraid I'll stray? That is hardly the case. If anything, WE now try our best to treat each other in a way that NEITHER of us would want to stray. I am VERY aware the street can go both ways. As a matter of fact, for a while I was convinced my H would have a revenge A to "settle the score". Who knows, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. At the end of the day, the reasons I had and A had little to do with my H. It was all on me and that's a whole story I'd rather not get into.

The point I was trying to make is who really wants a spouse back that doesn't WANT to be there? I agree that marriage should be thru thick and thin. My H and I see that now. We married kinda young (26) and have learned a lot in the 11 yrs since. Neither of us have been married or divorced before. We do strive for to death do us part. As far as other people's marriages... well I can't speak for them.

I don't incessantly bash or judge anyone here. I can't argue my point? Only the umpteenthousand posters can?

Plus, not all of us know there is a troll invasion, our troll sensor must need new batteries. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Now that it's more of a discussion, everything is fine IMO.

Tigger,



Is this a religious document? I am getting married soon and we hired a minister we do not know because the ceremony is out of town. Anyway he sent us the vows he does, and did not include anything about signing a covenant, so I am curious.

If you doubt this:



... do a news search on eharmony....

dreadful

"... do a news search on eharmony....

dreadful"


Now THAT, I can wholeheartedly agree with.

Weaver, there is a book called Marriage Covenant Ceremony Guide

As someone who divorced, I can tell you that I have a huge problem, and many people I have come in contact with do, too.

I understand that "society" seems to hardly blink an eye (if the media and Hollywood are any indication! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> )...

... but I'm thinking that maybe it's more about who we hang around with...

Which takes us, I suppose, to this site and other sites being mentioned in this thread...

Some of us (okay, I mean "me") have been told that we cause harm by our presense here.... in my case, it's because I began seeing my H before the divorces were final (story all over this site). But I post here and there where I can help... or if feel very strongly about an issue.

I have some issues with the rules/ dogma/ beliefs (whatever you want to call it) on one of the other sites, yet I am welcome there.

I have belonged to other sites, some helpful, some harmful... most are not nearly as active as MB, and I need active (Hey, I'm ADHD!).

I agree that it isn't polite or compassionate to come to a privately owned site and fight against what the site is built upon (here at MB it's saving marriages: traditional - 1 man/ 1 woman - marriages; at least as far as I can tell). It's disrespectful and there are far better places to get the support you need if you're in an alternative relationship (polymory, for example). The potential for harm outweighs the potential for healing -- by a longshot.

Thank you for that link, FF. We haven't totally looked into it at this point, just something we've thrown around in coming up in a couple years for our 20th anniversary.

We are talking about dancing when we say Swinging right. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Come on, I'm a Lutheran from Minnesota and we don't get the fancy stuff!

I think so too. I don't think I would be friends with swingers because it seems so odd and unholy of a concept to me, so I don't have any in my life. We don't hang out in the same crowds so they seem non-existant to me.

Thank you for that link Faithers. It is a christian document and concept then?

We just purchased this book when we attended the recent Orlando MB Weekend...Here's what Dr. Harley has to say on same-sex "marriages"...There are a couple of sidebars that I left out...sorry, I got tired of typing...LOL...Those are entitled "Can Gays and Lesbians Become Heterosexual?" and "Rational Fear, Not Phobia"-Buy the book to read his views on those! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

From Defending Traditional Marriage by Dr. Willard F. Harley, Jr. (Chapter 13 Pgs. 209-218)...

[color:"red"]Same Sex Marriage a Threat?
Is There Anthing Wrong with Gay and Lesbian Relationships?[/color]

[color:"blue"]"Over the past thirty-five years, I've watched as our government has done just about everything imaginable to lose the meaning of traditional marriage. We've allowed the enactment of laws that suggest traditional marriage has become outdated-that a permanent and sexually exclusive relationship of extraordinary care is no longer relevant. And all this has occurred with very little resistance despite devastating consequences to our families and to society in general. In each case these laws were passed with hardly a murmur of opposition.

That's why I was shocked to witness the energy behind grassroots efforts to resist same-sex marriage. Why now? I must say that I honestly didn't understand how this issue could create such a firestorm of protest when so little opposition had arisen against earlier changes in laws regarding marriage. But whatever the reason, I was energized by the realization that the controversy had awakened a sleeping giant. And legislators were listening.

In response to the public outcry, legislators at first simply enacted laws against same-sex marriage, hoping that would be enough to satisfy their constituents. But when judges challenged those laws as being unconstitutional, it became apparent that nothing short of a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage would suffice. So states throughout America are now in the process of changing their constitutions. They want to define marriage in their state constitutions as a relationship between one man and one woman-just so judges will not tamper with it.

From my perspective, traditional marriage was already doomed by cultural bias against extraordinary care in marriage and by the passage of laws supporting infidelity and divorce. So what difference would it make if gays and lesbians "married", when marriage had already lost its traditional meaning? Based on the legal and cultural trends we've considered so far in this book, I had already predicted that traditional marriage would be reduced to a cultural footnote within the next few decades.

Consider the numbers. My best estimate of the percentage of marriages that suffer from infidelity is 60%. That's over half of all marriages. And the percentage of the marriages that end in divorce is about 45%-almost half. In contrast, where same-sex marriage or civil unions are encouraged, they account for just 0.5 percent of all marriages. That means only five couples out of a thousand actually choose that path-99.5% choose heterosexual marriage. How much influence could that half of one percent have on the rest of us?

So when I first became aware of the same-sex marriage issue, I didn't view it as a significant risk for traditional families. There were too few of them to have much impact. On the other hand, laws favoring infidelity and divorce have had, and continue to have a devastating effect on marriage. It seemed to me that all of that energy going into avoiding same-sex marriage was being directed at the wrong issue. Traditional marriage was already on the rocks-and not because of the same-sex marriage issue.[/color]

[color:"black"]Nonetheless, the more I studied the arguments both for and against same-sex marriage, the more convinced I became that the fourth element of marriage-that it is betweeen a man and a woman-does need to be supported. Let me explain why I'm now on board.[/color]

[color:"red"]Do Same-Sex Relationships Really Work?[/color]

[color:"blue"]Traditional marriage creates the most fulfilling relationship that is possible in life. When all four of its essential elements are in place, a husband and wife-and their children-are very happy. But when even one of those elements is lacking, trouble is on the horizon.

It's easy to see how the lack of extraordinary care, sexual exclusivity, or permanence would wreck a relationship. But is it all that important for the couple to be of opposite sexes?

Admittedly, there's not much published research on this topic. As with surveys that ask people about incidences of infidelity, it's difficult to obtain accurate data regarding fulfillment in same-sex relationships. In public surveys, most people will either deny ever having had an affair or, when they do admit it, will tend to downplay its diastrous consequences. Likewise, in surveys, same-sex couples who are fighting for the right to marry are likely to downplay frustration or dissatisfaction with their relationships.

But I've observed hundreds of same-sex couples in my own professsional experience, and they have always stood out to me as being characteristically frustrated and depressed-many to the point of suicide. Same-sex relationships tend to be very brief and, especially for men, very unhealthy and violent. Granted, I've seen my share of unhealthy opposite-sex relationships as well. Yet on average, the same-sex relationships I've witnessed have been far more fragile.

For these and a host of other clinical reasons, I've discouraged my clients from maintaining their same-sex relationships. Instead I encourage them to either pull away from romantic relationships entirely for a time or to turn their attention to opposite-sex relationships. And, contrary to public perceptions, I've seen many clients successfully reorient themselves to opposite-sex relationships. Scores of my previously gay and lesbian clients are now happily married with children-all because they embraced a traditional definition of marriage that is marked by extraordinary care for life.

I have absolutely no doubt that same-sex relationships can be very romantic. And they can be characterized by the extraordinary care I've suggested. But even in the best of these relationships, when a couple has been honest with me, they have both admitted that they would have preferred feeling the same way toward someone of the opposite sex. The truth is, on average, opposite-sex relationships tend to be more stable and fulfilling. And that, in itself, is a good reason to promote traditional marriage rather than same-sex marriage. But there's also another, even more important reason: the welfare of our children.[/color]

[color:"red"]A Biological Father and Mother Make the Best Parents[/color]

[color:"blue"]When parents share genetic traits with their chilren, it gives them an instinctive advantage for understanding what those children need. Shared genetic traits also tend to help children understand why their parents react the way they do. That emotional similarity helps parents and children form a bond that is much more difficult to form in alternative families. And that bonds leads to trust that makes training much easier to implement.

Since gay and lesbian relationships do not lead to the creation of offspring that share genetic traits of both partners, they suffer a distinct disadvantage when it comes to raising children. At best, just one of the parents has that biological connection to the child. And as a result, they lack the same emotional empathy that biological parents tend to have.

Also, because gay or lesbian couples do not offer both a male and female parental role model for their children early in life, such children are at a distinct disadvantage later in life. In most families biological fathers and mothers tend to play very different roles in the training of children that help balance love and care (a mother's influence) with responsibility and discipline (a father's influence). Granted, I acknowledge a significant overlap in these traits-women are also responsible and disciplined, and men do demonstrate love and care. But in most families, care is more empathasized by mothers and responsiblity is more influenced by fathers.

A father gives his children insight into the way men tend to view the world, and a mother gives them a woman's perspective. As long as both parents respect each other's way of thinking, a child grows up with understanding of the value of both men and women. Diversity training begins in the traditional family, where children come to appreciate the differences between their mother and father.

Same-sex couples offer childre little hope of understanding and appreciating the differences between men and women because they cannot provide daily exposure to both a father and a mother. Instead, they tend to reinforce a false belief that men and women are not made for each other because they cannot demonstrate to children the exquisite way that a man and woman can blend together.

In addition to concerns about male and female parental influences, there is also another reason to be concerned about the ability of gay and lesbian couples to raise children most successfuly: their relationships are notoriously unstable. As we've already discussed, problems they have trying to make their relationship fulfilling often cause them to jump from one relationship to another-in constant search of that perfect match. As a result, their relationships don't usually last very long. Only a very small percentage stay together long enough to raise a child to adulthood.

As I already mentioned, it's difficult to get accurate information about the stability of same-sex relationships from surveys. But the countries that have enacted laws granting same-sex marriage and civil unions have provided our first truly objecive measures of the stability of same-sex marriages. For the first time, we have their divorce rates.

We are all aware how fragile opposite-sex marriages have been recently-divorce rates are incredibly high. In fact, one of the arguments used in support of same-sex marriage is that they can't be any worse than opposite-sex marriage. But the first solid evidence we have on that subject from Sweden is that same-sex marriages are worse-much worse.

In the Swedish study, the divorce rate of same-sex couples was compared with the divorce rate of opposite-sex couples over a similar period of time. It was found that same-sex male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce, and same-sex female couples were 167 percent more likely to divorce than their opposite-sex counterparts. In other words, divorce statistics among same-sex couples reflected what I already knew-they are unstable whether or not they marry.

And these results are particularly impressive when you consider that same-sex couples in the most stable relationships would be the first to take advantage of the opportunity to marry. The early results from Sweden should give same-sex couples a temporary advantage over their opposite-sex counterparts when dvorce rates are compared. But this study indicates that the first group of same-sex couples to have married in Sweden are actually more likely to divorce than opposite-sex couples in the same culture. And I expect future studies to show the divorce rates of same-sex couples to be even higher.

If same-sex relationships are much less stable than opposite-sex relationships (as shown in the Swedish study), it should be ovbious that they're not the ideal place for chilren to be raised. Children neeed safety and stability, and same-sex relationships tend to provide exactly the opposite-danger and instability.

In chapter 10, I presented other reasons why children need a biological father and mother who stay together, so I won't repeat them here. But I will repeat the conclusion of thousands of studies: the best way to raise happy and successful children is for them to be with their biological father and mother who are united in marriage and who love their children and each other. In other words, a same-sex couple simply cannot give children the advantages that biological parents are able to provide. [/color]

[color:"red"]Why Experiment with the Lives of Children?[/color]

[color:"blue"]Many call same-sex marriage a social evolution. I'm in favor of doing things if they work. But I think same-sex marriage is more accurately characterized as a social experiment, and early results of this experiment are not at all encouraging. In fact, they are downright frightening, especially from the perspective of our children.

Why experiment with the lives of our children? Even if only one-half of on percent of couples will exercise the option of same-sex marriage, it's still an unsafe and unstable environment for both them and the children they could raise.

Children will believe almost anything we tell them when they're young. So why give children the impression that same-sex relationships offer the same advantages as opposite-sex relationships when it's not true? And why would we want to mislead children into thinking that same-sex relationships are safe and secure when it's so clear that they're not? They are more violent, more unhealthy, and more unstable than their heterosexual counterparts.

Men and women are made for each other physically, emotionally, and spiritually. I am a witness to how successful and permanent a relationship between a man and woman can be when they give each other extraordinary care.

Traditional marriages have suffered a body blow lately because our culture has failed to teach us the meaning of extraordinary care in marriage. And the same cultural changes that led to uncaring marriages also helped create the legal changes that made infidelity and divorce more common. Today, the success of marriage is at an all-time low when it comes to acheiving its potential. But in spite of its failure, heterosexual marriage is still doing far better than its same-sex counterpart.

If men and women would give each other the extraordinary care they promise at the time of marriage, our society would not be so disillusioned with marriage, and as a result we wouldn't even be considering same-sex marriage these days. And we wouldn't be seeing much infidelity or divorce either. If our marriages were to be characterized by extraordinary care, the other three elements of marriage would be easy for everyone to understand and accept.

But since we've come so far in destroying three of the essential elements of traditional marriage, I'm delighted that the risk of losing the fourth element has finally drawn the public's attention to traditional marriage. Perhaps this effort to stop further erosion in marriage will eventually help restore the other elements that been missing. If that happens, we will have helped create the quailty of marriage that will make our children happier, healthier, and more successful than we could have ever imagined."[/color]

Happy Reading!

Mrs. W

Mrs. W,

Thank you for taking the time to post that! It is very interesting.

Well thank you for the thank you Weaver! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I too found it very interesting...

Mrs. W

wow

Traditional marriage is a permanent and sexually exclusive relationship of extraordinary care between one man and one woman.

IF:

You don't hold this value system .... the tools that were devised by Harley to support this value system are not going to work for your bastardized version of marriage

I ordered this book .... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

got the book in the mail today

it's a beautiful book

just glancing throught it - this book is going to enhance my life !