SCOTUS not enough- prop 8 jerks trying to find another way

[Sum Dum Gai]

It can play into the argument a little bit since Virgil and others have pointed out that one of the reasons for marriage was to create a stable home environment for the raising of children.  Gays have lower divorce rates, so they're better at creating stable home environments.  Most of us don't think the only purpose of marriage is to create a stable home for children though, so it's a tangential issue at best.

[mmhmm]

I have a very dear friend in England who, a few years ago, married his partner of over 20 years.  They're both great guys and care very deeply for one another.  My friend's partner (now, also my friend) had two young boys coming into the relationship.  They've raised a couple of marvelous young men.  One is now married (to a female) and the other is in university.  I've never seen much difference in their family and the heterosexual families I know.  My friends were just as proud and excited about their boys' accomplishments, and just as troubled by the boys' difficulties, as any parent would be.  While I don't find having children to be the sole criterion for marriage, I know these guys have done just as well with their kids as any family, regardless of its make-up.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 13:33:47 GMT -5 steff said:

In Canada, the "gay marriage" divorce rate started at 0.8% per year, then moved to 1.1%, 1.4%, and on as more data became available. I don't know what the latest figure is. The "rates" aren't considered stable or reliable.

In the US, the few states that report data can only report back to late 2011, thus considering only divorces that occur inside the first 20 months of marriage. I should think that any Americans pushing to be the first "gay couples" in the US would characteristically have the impetus to last at least 20 months.

What does this have to do with anything? 

It's the statistical reality pertaining to the argument at hand.

As for the relevance, ask Dark. I was replying to his comment. Maybe somebody eventually hoped to make the BS argument that marital legitimacy is somehow contingent on divorce rates.

[Sum Dum Gai]

As for the relevance, ask Dark. I was replying to his comment.

Which I only made to point out that the rate of something happening isn't affected by the total.  Divorce rates have nothing to do with whether marriage should be legal in the first place.  Like I've previously said.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 13:41:32 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

It can play into the argument a little bit since Virgil and others have pointed out that one of the reasons for marriage was to create a stable home environment for the raising of children.  Gays have lower divorce rates, so they're better at creating stable home environments.  Most of us don't think the only purpose of marriage is to create a stable home for children though, so it's a tangential issue at best.

"Virgil and others" have stated that children need both a mother and a father, that they suffer in the absence of either, and that divorce and infidelity are Biblically condemned with the same opprobrium as homosexuality. "Virgil and others" have claimed that a homosexual union is insufficient regardless of the commitment of the participants.

Not that you've ever concerned yourself with what I've actually said.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Not that you've ever concerned yourself with what I've actually said.

OK.  The vast majority of the time I respond to you I quote your statements directly.  Like I'm doing now.  I didn't feel the need to go back to earlier posts in this thread and quote you saying that part of the biblical precedent for marriage was to create a stable home for the raising of children, because I didn't think you'd mind the paraphrasing.  I can go back and get the exact quote though if you've forgotten you said that in this exact thread.

[steff]

Jul 16, 2013 14:52:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 16, 2013 13:41:32 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

It can play into the argument a little bit since Virgil and others have pointed out that one of the reasons for marriage was to create a stable home environment for the raising of children.  Gays have lower divorce rates, so they're better at creating stable home environments.  Most of us don't think the only purpose of marriage is to create a stable home for children though, so it's a tangential issue at best.

"Virgil and others" have stated that children need both a mother and a father, that they suffer in the absence of either, and that divorce and infidelity are Biblically condemned with the same opprobrium as homosexuality. "Virgil and others" have claimed that a homosexual union is insufficient regardless of the commitment of the participants.

Not that you've ever concerned yourself with what I've actually said.

My mother is twice divorced.  She divorced my dad during Viet Nam when he had a new found interest in beating the dog shit out of her & me (a 2 year old).  She divorced my step dad because he was a living breathing monster in every sense of the word.  Neither man were a part of our lives after that.

In BOTH cases, the divorces created a calm, loving, safe, secure, & loving environment for us to grow up in.  We are BETTER because my mom was brave enough to say "NO MORE".  She never allowed anyone else's opinion to sway what was best for her children.  She worked her ass off at 2 & 3 jobs to support us because neither man lived up to his child support obligations & it was safer for us for her to just work her ass off than rock the boat & have them involved in our lives at all. 

You will NEVER convince me that marriage is the ONLY way children have a happy, healthy, better environment to grow up in.   Sometimes it's the WORST thing for the kids. 

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2013 0:57:58 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:50:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Americans are race busybodies.

A busybody is a specialist in making a big issue out of a gaffe, or a faux-pas, or a cultural misunderstanding.

The "gay marriage" controversy is none of these things. It is a concerted, purposeful, nationwide clash of ideals. I'm not picking on homosexual candidates, or demanding that posters never utter the slur "homosexual", or opining about gay-on-straight violence. Those are petty, ancillary issues. It's the whole point of my rant vis a vis race.

Respect the distinction.

 They may be "petty, ancillary issues" to you... but those who suffer from abuse usually think it far more significant than their abusers do. 
 "Why, sheriff, it was just a li'l ol' lynching! What's the big fuss?"
 
 

havent heard about a hanging in what, 50 years? 60 years? 

racial bias does still exist.....but in smaller numbers every year as the generations of bigots pass on

gay "marriage" is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people that have always believed that marriage can ONLY exist between a man and a woman

people are changing their minds.....but slowly

just as the change for "gays" took years for the world at large to accept

or bi racial marriage.....

or any other major social changes....they all take time for people to come to grips with the new "reality"

some never will.....

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 14:58:00 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Not that you've ever concerned yourself with what I've actually said.

OK.  The vast majority of the time I respond to you I quote your statements directly.  Like I'm doing now.  I didn't feel the need to go back to earlier posts in this thread and quote you saying that part of the biblical precedent for marriage was to create a stable home for the raising of children, because I didn't think you'd mind the paraphrasing.  I can go back and get the exact quote though if you've forgotten you said that in this exact thread.

There is such thing as a Godly marriage. Scripturally, marriage is an exhaustive topic. A successful marriage is part of a broader way of life outlined by the Bible. It doesn't start and end with a man and a woman deciding to marry.

Divorce is a 20th-century phenomenon. The Bible abhors it for good reason. It was permitted as an escape clause in the event that one partner commits a gross breach of contract. But it is in no way treated as natural or acceptable. There is no divorce at all in Biblical marriage. As soon as there is, it means that one or both of the participants have breached one of the most--if not the most--important covenant (s)he has ever entered into. Up until the 20th century, Christendom largely understood this.

Now divorce and casual marriage are so commonplace that "Vegas marriages" are held up like a heaping pile of dung as some kind of marital standard. Why anyone would respect that standard or how any kind of relationship could fail to outperform it is beyond me.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 15:08:09 GMT -5 steff said:

Jul 16, 2013 14:52:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

"Virgil and others" have stated that children need both a mother and a father, that they suffer in the absence of either, and that divorce and infidelity are Biblically condemned with the same opprobrium as homosexuality. "Virgil and others" have claimed that a homosexual union is insufficient regardless of the commitment of the participants.

Not that you've ever concerned yourself with what I've actually said.

My mother is twice divorced.  She divorced my dad during Viet Nam when he had a new found interest in beating the dog shit out of her & me (a 2 year old).  She divorced my step dad because he was a living breathing monster in every sense of the word.  Neither man were a part of our lives after that.

In BOTH cases, the divorces created a calm, loving, safe, secure, & loving environment for us to grow up in.  We are BETTER because my mom was brave enough to say "NO MORE".  She never allowed anyone else's opinion to sway what was best for her children.  She worked her ass off at 2 & 3 jobs to support us because neither man lived up to his child support obligations & it was safer for us for her to just work her ass off than rock the boat & have them involved in our lives at all. 

You will NEVER convince me that marriage is the ONLY way children have a happy, healthy, better environment to grow up in.   Sometimes it's the WORST thing for the kids. 

Violence is a breach of marital contract, and a condition under which divorce is permitted.

That said, what you're describing is a dysfunctional family and failed marital covenant. The marriage failed prior to the divorce in both cases.

You have no idea what your life would be like now had you grown up in a functional family, and I contend that--notwithstanding God's grace and many other decisions you've made in your life--you would look back on your life lived with a functional family and your life lived without, and conclude that the former was the greater of the two.

[Angel!]

Jul 16, 2013 15:25:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 16, 2013 14:58:00 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

OK.  The vast majority of the time I respond to you I quote your statements directly.  Like I'm doing now.  I didn't feel the need to go back to earlier posts in this thread and quote you saying that part of the biblical precedent for marriage was to create a stable home for the raising of children, because I didn't think you'd mind the paraphrasing.  I can go back and get the exact quote though if you've forgotten you said that in this exact thread.

There is such thing as a Godly marriage. Scripturally, marriage is an exhaustive topic. A successful marriage is part of a broader way of life outlined by the Bible. It doesn't start and end with a man and a woman deciding to marry.

Divorce is a 20th-century phenomenon. The Bible abhors it for good reason. It was permitted as an escape clause in the event that one partner commits a gross breach of contract. But it is in no way treated as natural or acceptable. There is no divorce at all in Biblical marriage. As soon as there is, it means that one or both of the participants have breached one of the most--if not the most--important covenant (s)he has ever entered into. Up until the 20th century, Christendom largely understood this.

Now divorce and casual marriage are so commonplace that "Vegas marriages" are held up like a heaping pile of dung as some kind of marital standard. Why anyone would respect that standard or how any kind of relationship could fail to outperform it is beyond me.

I guess the question is - is this due to some moral decay of society & every losing their religious beliefs or because women have the option to divorce when in a crappy marriage?

Personally, I don't think people stayed in marriages due to strong religious convictions in the past, but rather because of lack of options.  When a woman doesn't have work and has few rights, it is hard to leave a bad marriage.  So they dealt with it.  They stayed despite abuse, despite cheating & told themselves they had to be strong for the kids. 

I could see that 2 good parents might be better than a single parent. But, what steff is showing is that a good single parent is far better than 2 parents if one of those parents is horrid.  It is kind of insulting to tell her she would have been better off with 2 good parents, when that wasn't in the cards for her & she had the option of a single mom or 2 married parents & being raised in an abusive house.  Two good parents isn't always an option.  A good marriage isn't always possible.  Single parents are often much better than the alternative. It is insulting to overlook this when going on about the evils of divorce & how much better kids are in a typical mother/father family.

[mmhmm]

Jul 16, 2013 15:25:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 16, 2013 14:58:00 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

OK.  The vast majority of the time I respond to you I quote your statements directly.  Like I'm doing now.  I didn't feel the need to go back to earlier posts in this thread and quote you saying that part of the biblical precedent for marriage was to create a stable home for the raising of children, because I didn't think you'd mind the paraphrasing.  I can go back and get the exact quote though if you've forgotten you said that in this exact thread.

There is such thing as a Godly marriage. Scripturally, marriage is an exhaustive topic. A successful marriage is part of a broader way of life outlined by the Bible. It doesn't start and end with a man and a woman deciding to marry.

Divorce is a 20th-century phenomenon. The Bible abhors it for good reason. It was permitted as an escape clause in the event that one partner commits a gross breach of contract. But it is in no way treated as natural or acceptable. There is no divorce at all in Biblical marriage. As soon as there is, it means that one or both of the participants have breached one of the most--if not the most--important covenant (s)he has ever entered into. Up until the 20th century, Christendom largely understood this.

Now divorce and casual marriage are so commonplace that "Vegas marriages" are held up like a heaping pile of dung as some kind of marital standard. Why anyone would respect that standard or how any kind of relationship could fail to outperform it is beyond me.

Not everyone ascribes to your Biblical views, Virgil.  That's the reality of posting on a message board with people of diverse beliefs.  My marriage of 37 years was a "Vegas marriage". We did pretty darned well with it!  Had my late husband not passed away, we'd still be doing just as well with it.  There was no abuse and there was no infidelity.  There was love between two people, neither of whom believed as you believe.  The lack of religion did not have any negative impact on our marriage and I know many people who can say exactly the same thing.

[Virgil Showlion]

It is kind of insulting to tell her she would have been better off with 2 good parents, when that wasn't in the cards for her & she had the option of a single mom or 2 married parents & being raised in an abusive house.

I'm not saying that a child raised in a broken or dysfunctional family will categorically underperform one raised in a functional one.

I'm saying that statistically, infidelity, divorce, single-parenthood all take a significant toll. Furthermore, the correlation between a couple's divorce rate and their parents' divorce rate is extremely high, meaning that marital dysfunction is likely to propagate and worsen with passing generations. Many couples are even forsaking marriage entirely because the concept of a lifelong marital contract is alien to them.

But God gives His grace to everyone, not just Bible-thumping Christians, and even children raised in the most abusive, unstable, unloving circumstances can sometimes prove to be exceptionally righteous individuals and capable parents.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 16, 2013 12:29:59 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 16, 2013 12:20:48 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Good thing you'll never be in one then.  It still begs the question, why do you care?  You aren't gay.  Whether they have the right to marry or not won't effect you in any way?  Why is it so important to force your religious views on the broader society?

I care about the definition of the word, and I'm justifying my position in this thread.

As for "forcing my religious views on the broader society", I didn't author the DOMA legislation. I didn't lobby the US government to support it, and I didn't vote "Yes" on Prop 8. In this thread I'm simply explaining why Californians would have.

Wouldn't your opinion carry over to Canada where it is legal in every province and territory and where you are a citizen?  Your opinion of gay marriage and religion in Canada must be the same as gay marriage in the U.S. no?

[Tennesseer]

Jul 16, 2013 13:18:00 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

Jul 16, 2013 13:11:51 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Well you know how it is in Vegas... one thing just sort of leads to another and then you wake up next to a stripper with a ring on her finger.

Now can you all see why Vegas was my dream wedding?!? 

Can you clarify please.  Was it the ring on your finger or the stripper thing.  Thanks!

[kittensaver]

Jul 16, 2013 16:37:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It is kind of insulting to tell her she would have been better off with 2 good parents, when that wasn't in the cards for her & she had the option of a single mom or 2 married parents & being raised in an abusive house.

I'm not saying that a child raised in a broken or dysfunctional family will categorically underperform one raised in a functional one.

I'm saying that statistically, infidelity, divorce, single-parenthood all take a significant toll. Furthermore, the correlation between a couple's divorce rate and their parents' divorce rate is extremely high, meaning that marital dysfunction is likely to propagate and worsen with passing generations. Many couples are even forsaking marriage entirely because the concept of a lifelong marital contract is alien to them.

But God gives His grace to everyone, not just Bible-thumping Christians, and even children raised in the most abusive, unstable, unloving circumstances can sometimes prove to be exceptionally righteous individuals and capable parents.

Gee whiz, Steff, even YOU with a crappy, disfunctional family background might (if God deems you worthy) even grow up to be a decent human being . 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 16:26:31 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jul 16, 2013 15:25:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

There is such thing as a Godly marriage. Scripturally, marriage is an exhaustive topic. A successful marriage is part of a broader way of life outlined by the Bible. It doesn't start and end with a man and a woman deciding to marry.

Divorce is a 20th-century phenomenon. The Bible abhors it for good reason. It was permitted as an escape clause in the event that one partner commits a gross breach of contract. But it is in no way treated as natural or acceptable. There is no divorce at all in Biblical marriage. As soon as there is, it means that one or both of the participants have breached one of the most--if not the most--important covenant (s)he has ever entered into. Up until the 20th century, Christendom largely understood this.

Now divorce and casual marriage are so commonplace that "Vegas marriages" are held up like a heaping pile of dung as some kind of marital standard. Why anyone would respect that standard or how any kind of relationship could fail to outperform it is beyond me.

Not everyone ascribes to your Biblical views, Virgil.  That's the reality of posting on a message board with people of diverse beliefs.  My marriage of 37 years was a "Vegas marriage". We did pretty darned well with it!  Had my late husband not passed away, we'd still be doing just as well with it.  There was no abuse and there was no infidelity.  There was love between two people, neither of whom believed as you believe.  The lack of religion did not have any negative impact on our marriage and I know many people who can say exactly the same thing.

"Vegas marriage" pertains to the attitude behind the marriage, not where the marriage took place.

If you went into the marriage with the iron-clad belief that it would be until death do you part, that you would never under any circumstances commit adultery, that you would love and cherish your husband always, and that you trusted your husband wholeheartedly to uphold the same vow, then you and he did believe as I believe--at least as far as the nature of marriage. Moreover, I have no doubt that God will have blessed you and your husband as a result of your righteous conduct and loyalty over the many decades.

[jkapp]

Jul 14, 2013 16:38:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I agree that marriage should not be sanctioned or penalized by the govt.

Government is the sine qua non of the "gay marriage" controversy.

Proposition 8 was a legislative measure to determine the majority view of Californians. In theory the government was expected to accede to the democratic will of the people.

The courts--another branch of government--later declared the results of the referendum to be unconstitutional.

DOMA advocates had earlier appealed to the US federal government to limit the government's role in administrating marriage to issuing "civil union" certificates, of which traditional marriage certificates would be one subtype, thus differentiating between sacramental marriage and "marriage" as a legal status.

This politicking was opposed for several reasons. The measure would require the government to either formally acknowledge the sacramental (i.e. religious) nature of traditional marriage, or else offload marriage to religious organizations except for the legal aspects, which would create headaches for existing married couples by splitting apart the meaning of "married" and "legally joined".

Ultimately, the courts (i.e. government, yet again) declared any kind of marriage/civil union distinction to be "inherently unequal" per 20th century segregation case law, eliminating it as an option.

The government is ultimately the authority that issues the certificates. It proscribes the rights and privileges enjoyed by the bearers, and that determines who may obtain them. Government is the be all and end all of the issue. It has nothing to do with "people's bedrooms" and it most certainly doesn't pertain to keeping the government "out of" anything.

I think this is the perfect explanation of the issue...it was government intruding in personal lives that created the issue.  Why does government need to issue a "license" for people to get married, other than to act as another revenue source for government?  This whole issue boils down to, once again, the government creating a problem and then trying to "fix" the problem they created by creating more problems. 

"Get out of the bedroom?"  How about government just get the hell out of our lives for crying out loud!!

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 16:39:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 16, 2013 12:29:59 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I care about the definition of the word, and I'm justifying my position in this thread.

As for "forcing my religious views on the broader society", I didn't author the DOMA legislation. I didn't lobby the US government to support it, and I didn't vote "Yes" on Prop 8. In this thread I'm simply explaining why Californians would have.

Wouldn't your opinion carry over to Canada where it is legal in every province and territory and where you are a citizen?  Your opinion of gay marriage and religion in Canada must be the same as gay marriage in the U.S. no?

Yes. But the issue wasn't decided by vote here. And even if it had been, I don't vote.

Frankly, I'm not sure how I'd have voted even if it had been put to a referendum. Half of me would resent the notion of granting any kind of legitimacy to "gay marriage", while the other half would concede it was an inevitable end times milestone and voting to legalize it would at least get the LGBT crowd to shut up.

[jkapp]

Jul 15, 2013 9:59:29 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 15, 2013 9:21:14 GMT -5 Sam_2.0 said:

I get what you are saying, but not really. Replace "married" with "civil union". In my mind, they are two separate things. DH and I have a civil union because we filed the appropriate papers at the court house. We have a marriage because we had our particular religious ceremony performed. You can have one, the other, or both.

I say we call any government recognized union a civil union. Then we have to get into the issue of will we allow more than two people into a union, and what are the consequences of that. Let churches go on having the ceremonies that are relevant to them as they choose. I didn't have a Catholic or Jewish marriage ceremony because I am not Catholic or Jewish. Some LDS churches still perform plural marriages in the church, but they are not recognized by the government.

If a church does not want to perform a certain type of marriage (religious) ceremony, then they don't have to. But those persons could still receive the same rights and benefits in the eyes of the government as every other civil union.

I don't get why it's that difficult to separate the meanings between the two.

There seems to be a need for some to lower the status of same-sex marriages to simply civil unions. And in their minds a union held in a religious building is greater than a union legalized at city hall.

The problem with religious marriages versus civil unions for some of these folks is that some Christian churches do recognize same-sex marriages celebrated in their houses of god are just as valid and blessed by their Creator as heterosexual marriages. Then the issue arises that the Christian churches performing and celebrating same-sex marriages aren't really Christian churches. Some folks just need to be 'better' than everyone else.

I recommend everyone must first get married at city hall. If they wish to have some type of religious at a church that is fine. But everyone is married once the marriage certificate is signed at city hall.

Separate but equal is still unequal.

Why does government need to get involved at all?  I think that's what created this issue in the first place...

[mmhmm]

Jul 16, 2013 16:46:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 16, 2013 16:26:31 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Not everyone ascribes to your Biblical views, Virgil.  That's the reality of posting on a message board with people of diverse beliefs.  My marriage of 37 years was a "Vegas marriage". We did pretty darned well with it!  Had my late husband not passed away, we'd still be doing just as well with it.  There was no abuse and there was no infidelity.  There was love between two people, neither of whom believed as you believe.  The lack of religion did not have any negative impact on our marriage and I know many people who can say exactly the same thing.

"Vegas marriage" pertains to the attitude behind the marriage, not where the marriage took place.

If you went into the marriage with the iron-clad belief that it would be until death do you part, that you would never under any circumstances commit adultery, that you would love and cherish your husband always, and that you trusted your husband wholeheartedly to uphold the same vow, then you and he did believe as I believe--at least as far as the nature of marriage. Moreover, I have no doubt that God will have blessed you and your husband as a result of your righteous conduct and loyalty over the many decades.

We went into the marriage as two people who loved one another, Virgil.  We were adults, and looked upon marriage as a way to join our lives and work together for our futures.  We were both aware that divorces sometimes happen, that people sometimes change, and that any pairing of individuals can fail under the right/wrong circumstances.  In light of the fact my late husband did not believe in God, and neither do I, we did not enter into marriage as some sort of "blessed union".  That's your take on it, not ours.  We did not believe as you believe, even as to the nature of marriage.  We just happened to be people who keep the promises they make if at all possible.

[steff]

Jul 16, 2013 15:33:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 16, 2013 15:08:09 GMT -5 steff said:

My mother is twice divorced.  She divorced my dad during Viet Nam when he had a new found interest in beating the dog shit out of her & me (a 2 year old).  She divorced my step dad because he was a living breathing monster in every sense of the word.  Neither man were a part of our lives after that.

In BOTH cases, the divorces created a calm, loving, safe, secure, & loving environment for us to grow up in.  We are BETTER because my mom was brave enough to say "NO MORE".  She never allowed anyone else's opinion to sway what was best for her children.  She worked her ass off at 2 & 3 jobs to support us because neither man lived up to his child support obligations & it was safer for us for her to just work her ass off than rock the boat & have them involved in our lives at all. 

You will NEVER convince me that marriage is the ONLY way children have a happy, healthy, better environment to grow up in.   Sometimes it's the WORST thing for the kids. 

Violence is a breach of marital contract, and a condition under which divorce is permitted.

That said, what you're describing is a dysfunctional family and failed marital covenant. The marriage failed prior to the divorce in both cases.

You have no idea what your life would be like now had you grown up in a functional family, and I contend that--notwithstanding God's grace and many other decisions you've made in your life--you would look back on your life lived with a functional family and your life lived without, and conclude that the former was the greater of the two.

who are you to decide what is functional and what isn't for my family & life?  

For the record, after the divorce, I did grow up in a functional family.  We all are productive members of society.  2 of us are married, I had a kid. I've been married 20 years.   We are closer than any other family that I know, including some within our own extended family who did have both parents, but now days can't stand to be in the same room with each other.  

We didn't and still don't need anyone (not even your Gods) input on what was best for us.  WE would be the ones to decide that & what is right for US.  Not you, not anyone else.  And pffffffffffffffft on you for sitting on your high horse trying to speak down to those that you consider "dysfunctional".  Truth is, the ONLY life you know anything about is yours.  NOT MINE. 

[Tennesseer]

Jul 16, 2013 16:54:14 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 15, 2013 9:59:29 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

There seems to be a need for some to lower the status of same-sex marriages to simply civil unions. And in their minds a union held in a religious building is greater than a union legalized at city hall.

The problem with religious marriages versus civil unions for some of these folks is that some Christian churches do recognize same-sex marriages celebrated in their houses of god are just as valid and blessed by their Creator as heterosexual marriages. Then the issue arises that the Christian churches performing and celebrating same-sex marriages aren't really Christian churches. Some folks just need to be 'better' than everyone else.

I recommend everyone must first get married at city hall. If they wish to have some type of religious at a church that is fine. But everyone is married once the marriage certificate is signed at city hall.

Separate but equal is still unequal.

Why does government need to get involved at all?  I think that's what created this issue in the first place...

It doesn't.  But if same-sex marriages are freely performed by Christian ministers and reverends in their churches and the ministers and reverends call it a marriage, that will still piss off those that don't want same-sex couples to be able to say they are married.  Those against legalizing same sex-marriage want same-sex couples to call their legal marriage a same-sex union (if they will allow them to call themselves anything at all or anything remotely recognized by one and all).

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 16:55:02 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jul 16, 2013 16:46:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

"Vegas marriage" pertains to the attitude behind the marriage, not where the marriage took place.

If you went into the marriage with the iron-clad belief that it would be until death do you part, that you would never under any circumstances commit adultery, that you would love and cherish your husband always, and that you trusted your husband wholeheartedly to uphold the same vow, then you and he did believe as I believe--at least as far as the nature of marriage. Moreover, I have no doubt that God will have blessed you and your husband as a result of your righteous conduct and loyalty over the many decades.

We went into the marriage as two people who loved one another, Virgil.  We were adults, and looked upon marriage as a way to join our lives and work together for our futures.  We were both aware that divorces sometimes happen, that people sometimes change, and that any pairing of individuals can fail under the right/wrong circumstances.  In light of the fact my late husband did not believe in God, and neither do I, we did not enter into marriage as some sort of "blessed union".  That's your take on it, not ours.  We did not believe as you believe, even as to the nature of marriage.  We just happened to be people who keep the promises they make if at all possible.

You entered into a marital covenant and persisted in it for 37 years. You may not have ascribed spiritual significance to it, but insofar as you were loyal, faithful, and persevering, you were blessed.

God's law is living law, no different from gravity. It pertains to everyone regardless of whether they believe it exists. If you jump off a cliff, gravity pulls you down. If you enter into a marriage covenant and exercise due loyalty, patience, etc., you will benefit from a long and successful marriage. The Bible simply outlines those laws, in the same way that a science textbook describes the nature of gravity.

At some point in your life, through some combination of circumstances, you were taught that loyalty, love, and faithfulness are prerequisites for a successful marriage. You and your husband employed those teachings and benefited from them. Action and consequence.

[mmhmm]

Virgil, please.  Your beliefs simply don't translate into my life.  You have no idea what lessons I learned in life.  My parents were married for over 60 years and pretty much fought the whole time.  They really didn't like each other, at all, so love, loyalty and faithfulness weren't stressed to me.  Both talked to me about the other in unflattering terms, at one time, or another.  My father was not faithful.  Loyalty?  Nah.  More like "the family would disapprove", and "what else would I do?", and a pretty good dollop of habit.  My husband's parents' marriage was a freaking nightmare equal to, if not worse, than my parents' marriage.  We "benefited" not at all.  We both happened to be people who believe in treating others as we would be treated.  It's really that simple, and it doesn't come from religion.  It comes from logic and good sense.

[billisonboard]

Jul 16, 2013 16:54:14 GMT -5 jkapp said:

... Why does government need to get involved at all?  I think that's what created this issue in the first place...

The licensing of a relationship is a service provided by government. It is not mandated that anyone partake in this service.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 17:02:17 GMT -5 steff said:

Jul 16, 2013 15:33:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Violence is a breach of marital contract, and a condition under which divorce is permitted.

That said, what you're describing is a dysfunctional family and failed marital covenant. The marriage failed prior to the divorce in both cases.

You have no idea what your life would be like now had you grown up in a functional family, and I contend that--notwithstanding God's grace and many other decisions you've made in your life--you would look back on your life lived with a functional family and your life lived without, and conclude that the former was the greater of the two.

who are you to decide what is functional and what isn't for my family & life?  

For the record, after the divorce, I did grow up in a functional family.  We all are productive members of society.  2 of us are married, I had a kid. I've been married 20 years.   We are closer than any other family that I know, including some within our own extended family who did have both parents, but now days can't stand to be in the same room with each other.  

We didn't and still don't need anyone (not even your Gods) input on what was best for us.  WE would be the ones to decide that & what is right for US.  Not you, not anyone else.  And pffffffffffffffft on you for sitting on your high horse trying to speak down to those that you consider "dysfunctional".  Truth is, the ONLY life you know anything about is yours.  NOT MINE. 

If you prefer to characterize a man abusing his two-year-old child as a 'functional' family, that's your prerogative.

At no point did I call you or anyone else "dysfunctional", nor have I made a critique of your life situation. The only things I really know about you is that you're strong-willed, borderline misandric, and pathologically incapable of reconciling what you think I've said with what I actually say.

For example, I'm half expecting that in a week from now you'll insist I claimed you eat kittens for breakfast.

For the record, I'm glad you've maintained a close, loving relationship with your mother and siblings. Hopefully you consider it a blessing--at least in the sense that you value it and believe that it has been profitable to you.

[kittensaver]

Jul 16, 2013 17:29:03 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 16, 2013 16:54:14 GMT -5 jkapp said:

... Why does government need to get involved at all?  I think that's what created this issue in the first place...

The licensing of a relationship is a service provided by government. It is not mandated that anyone partake in this service.

But it IS mandated to partake of this service if you want the rights, privileges and protections the government has chosen to attach to the service . . .

[steff]

The only things I really know about you is that you're strong-willed, borderline misandric, and pathologically incapable of reconciling what you think I've said with what I actually say

Too bad if I responded to this the way I want to, I would get banned for it.  

Think whatever you want, it has NO affect on my life & doesn't make it true at all. 

And stick your beliefs where the sun doesn't shine. 

[billisonboard]

Jul 16, 2013 17:31:26 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Jul 16, 2013 17:29:03 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The licensing of a relationship is a service provided by government. It is not mandated that anyone partake in this service.

But it IS mandated to partake of this service if you want the rights, privileges and protections the government has chosen to attach to the service . . .

True. If you want ..., then you have to ... True of every aspect of life on Earth.