The Real Way to Protect Marriage

[MCWAY]

What is it about harming others that you don't understand.

Who determines what harms whom? You don't seem to be grasping that part.

What does this have to do with marriage and when did I say I could only vote on things that directly affected me?  BTW - I don't recall ever getting to vote on minimum wage.  Did you?

No one said you did. The point (which you missed) is that you can (and probably have) voice your views, via the ballot box, on issues in which you had no dog in the fight. Yet, you seem to get miffed when others do the same, particularly as it relates to gay "marriage". Are you planning on insulting the folks who vote "Yes" for Florida and California's marriage amendments?

No one has the moral authority because it's not a moral issue.   It's a civil rights issue and a legal issue that has been addressed by the courts and there's simply no reason to ammend the constitution (state or federal) to make any statement about marriage 

And who made the proclamation that marriage isn't a moral issue again?

As for the legal aspects of it, ultimately the PEOPLE make the laws. As it relates to California, its constitution (framed by its people) states that electorate can amend the constitution by vote. This November, the voters get to have their say in the marriage matter. If they pass the amendment, marriage will be (once again) clearly defined as a union between one man and one woman, rendering the state Supreme Court's verdict moot.

Laws are based on morals. What people believe is right or wrong frame how laws gets drafted. And, their religious beliefs play a role to that effect. If marriage isn't a moral issue, then there's no reason to let a minority change its definition, when the majority does NOT want that to happen. It simply becomes a numbers game.

Again, it's really simple.  If you are personally against gay marriage then you a completely free to not get "gay married"  See how easy that is.

Here's a question for you:  Should the state prevent atheist from getting married??

Nope. There's no requirement that the parties involved believe in a deity. Only that, except for Massachusetts and California (until November, at least), it requires one man and one woman.

[Straw Man]

Who determines what harms whom? You don't seem to be grasping that part.

can we agree that the victim of child abuse and theft have been harmed?

if not, there is no point in going forward

[boonasty]

The best way to protect marriage is automatic child custody to the father. Most divorces are instigated by women and if they knew it would mean leaving their children, most would choose to work on their marriage.

the automatic child custody to the father would have alot of fathers i know working hard to make their marriage work

[Deicide]

My moral compass is simple - you should be free to do pretty much whatever you want provided it doesn't harm, restrict or endanger others. 

Gays getting married does not in any way harm straight people who want to get married nor have any effect on the legitimacy of their marriage.  Religious kooks who feel their belief or their god is somehow threatened should take a step or two back and try to get a larger perspective and realize that not everyone shares their beliefs and they have no right to impose their beliefs on others.

As for a consititutional ammendment - I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to either allow or restrict marriage.   

Well said Straw Man, well said.

[powerpack]

I am Pro Marriage all the way but some marriages just end up disasters.
Some people are tricked into marriage, some people marry for the wrong reason or you just never knew your partner was a psycho, money grabbing, soul sucking, sexless slab of crap till the honey moon ended.

I have seen so many of my buddies male and female stuck in shit marriages that will never get better because the partner has no will to change and do their part.
For them I believe divorce at the right time is an option.

[MCWAY]

I am Pro Marriage all the way but some marriages just end up disasters.
Some people are tricked into marriage, some people marry for the wrong reason or you just never knew your partner was a psycho, money grabbing, soul sucking, sexless slab of crap till the honey moon ended.

I have seen so many of my buddies male and female stuck in shit marriages that will never get better because the partner has no will to change and do their part.
For them I believe divorce at the right time is an option.

That's why I mentioned that there should be some sort of marriage counseling, BEFORE you officially tie the knot, in order to prevent these pitfalls, as well as a bethroment period. The more prepared you are before marriage, the more likely your marriage will be successful. Marriage counseling can also show that you aren't ready for marriage.

Marriage counseling training should cover things like:

- Financial responsibilities
- Role of the Husband
- Role of the Wife
- Emotional Support
- Sexual Fulfillment (my personal favorite) 
- Religious Instruction for the Home (Philosophical Instruction for our godless buddies)

Those are some off the top of my head.

[Deicide]

That's why I mentioned that there should be some sort of marriage counseling, BEFORE you officially tie the knot, in order to prevent these pitfalls, as well as a bethroment period. The more prepared you are before marriage, the more likely your marriage will be successful. Marriage counseling can also show that you aren't ready for marriage.

Marriage counseling training should cover things like:

- Financial responsibilities
- Role of the Husband
- Role of the Wife
- Emotional Support
- Sexual Fulfillment (my personal favorite) 
- Religious Instruction for the Home (Philosophical Instruction for our godless buddies)

Those are some off the top of my head.

Says the fundy nutcase; let's just go straight back to the Medieval Church while we are at it....

[MCWAY]

Says the fundy nutcase; let's just go straight back to the Medieval Church while we are at it....

Exactly what is the point of your heathen blubberings, this time?

Granted, I know you'd prefer to do the baby mama thing, so you can haul tail and run, once your backbone becomes a wishbone; but (and this may come as a surprise to you), many people, even those who don't believe in God, who are interested in marriage.

Too many divorces are caused by frivoulous marriages, in which the husband and wife enter the union, unprepared (emotionally, financially, sexually, spiritually/philosophically, etc.).

Preparation for that takes time. So, it would be wise to invest such time, to stack the deck in favor of a successful marriage.

[Deedee]

A constitutional ammendment outlawing DIVORCE

No straight person is going to choose not to get married just because gay people are getting married

The true (and only) threat to marriage is DIVORCE

I say this of course assuming that people truly care about protecting marriage and not just forcing one's personal or religious beliefs on someone else (i.e. merely restricting another persons freedom to pursue happiness)

There are far more straight people divorcing than there could be gay people marrying, but apparently Jesus' rule of "one strike and you're out" is too inconvenient for the religious right to actually walk the walk. But it isn't really about protecting the sanctity of marriage.  It's a fear of the secularization of society.

In the same vein you have American fundie groups lobbying in countries like Turkey for the removal of certain scientific teachings in favor of creationism. To them, a moderate, fledgling secular society is far more dangerous than raising new generations of wacks yelling Allah is great as they blow themselves up in crowded market places. 

[Deedee]

That's why I mentioned that there should be some sort of marriage counseling, BEFORE you officially tie the knot, in order to prevent these pitfalls, as well as a bethroment period. The more prepared you are before marriage, the more likely your marriage will be successful. Marriage counseling can also show that you aren't ready for marriage.

Marriage counseling training should cover things like:
- Financial responsibilities
- Role of the Husband
- Role of the Wife
- Emotional Support
- Sexual Fulfillment (my personal favorite) 
- Religious Instruction for the Home (Philosophical Instruction for our godless buddies)

Those are some off the top of my head.

How does this 3 year waiting period work anyway? What happens to pregnant couples? Are the kids shuffled into foster care till the counseling is over? Are they exempt, and get fast-tracked, in which case anyone who wants to bypass the waiting period simply has to start a family?

And who wants to receive sexual fulfillment counseling from the neighborhood nerd pastor? 

What's wrong with Jesus's rule that you get one kick at the can and that's it, ergo, abolish divorce?

Better still, if people want to divorce, why not institute a law that all their worldly belongings then go to the Church? All those messy, extended court battles would be a thing of the past, and it would benefit the needy. Of course, in both cases the murder rate would go up, but nothing's perfect. 

[Straw Man]

Why can't all the fundie nuts just be thankful that they live in a country that allows them the freedom of religious expression and for the love of Jebus stop pretending to be victimized when people you don't even know, who don't share your beliefs, do something that you don't agree with

[tonymctones]

Why can't all the fundie nuts just be thankful that they live in a country that allows them the freedom of religious expression and for the love of Jebus stop pretending to be victimized when people you don't even know, who don't share your beliefs, do something that you don't agree with

LOL the same could be said about a number of other groups...

[Deedee]

LOL the same could be said about a number of other groups...

Can you name a few? 

[MCWAY]

How does this 3 year waiting period work anyway? What happens to pregnant couples? Are the kids shuffled into foster care till the counseling is over? Are they exempt, and get fast-tracked, in which case anyone who wants to bypass the waiting period simply has to start a family?

And who wants to receive sexual fulfillment counseling from the neighborhood nerd pastor? 

What makes you think the pastor is a nerd or that he would be unable to provide such counsel?  Furthermore, if you look at that list I mentioned, I didn't limit such to pastors. As for pregnancy issues, one factor in many divorces is the "shotgun wedding" (i.e. marrying a girl, simply because you knocked her up). If you're weren't prepared for marriage beforehand, a baby isn't going to change things. Back in the day, people stuck it out, for the good of the family. That ain't happening in the "it's-all-about-me" generation that has dominate the late 20th/early21st century.

Besides, if a couple in such a situation still legitimately wanted to get hitched, they'd still benefit from marriage counseling.

Would you agree that marriage counseling should be facilitated to couples, whether the marriage occurs at a church or not?

Regarding the waiting period, I mentioned that the bethroment period in marriage, in OT times was a year. Loco mentioned that people should date for at least two years before getting married, as it is during that period that the "euphoria" wears off and the real work to sustain the relationship begins.

If I'm not mistaken, the one-year bethroment occured AFTER the dowry changed hands, as a prepatory period to get things ready for marriage (i.e. securing finances, living arrangements, etc.).

What's wrong with Jesus's rule that you get one kick at the can and that's it, ergo, abolish divorce?

Better still, if people want to divorce, why not institute a law that all their worldly belongings then go to the Church? All those messy, extended court battles would be a thing of the past, and it would benefit the needy. Of course, in both cases the murder rate would go up, but nothing's perfect. 

One of the reasons that Israelite men were instructed not to intermarry with the other "-ites", around them is because they picked up a lot of their bad habits, including friviously dumping their wives. Divorce was instituted for the women's sake so that, should they get dropped for trivial reasons, they can find a better hubby.

In the passage where Jesus mentioned divorce, the folks asking Him the questions are trying to trip Him up, hoping that he says something, contrary to OT law, so that they can nail Him for being a false prophet. He explained to the that the reason Moses authorized divorce is because the Israelite men were mistreating their wives. But, if they're so concerned about the rules, they should go back to the highest standard (i.e. adultery being grounds for divorce).

[Hugo Chavez]

very nice, you have my permission to visually enchance threads here at will.

[Hugo Chavez]

OK, I do NOT get this shit.  It's a stupid wedge issue anyway but I have one question that makes the hole thing stupid as hell. 

This sanctity of marriage bullshit.  I hear all this God says marriage is between a man an woman.  This is that their bitch revolves around how GOD defines marriage.  Well ok, where's the uproar for justice of the peace/non religious marriage?  If they didn't have a bitch with that which is outside the scope of God and religion, how can they have any ground to stand against a state allowing same sex marriage which falls into the same jurisdiction outside religious marriage?  yea you stupid mother fucking idiots, where do you get off honestly?  Again, pull your retarded heads out of your asses and see all of this in perspective and for what it is.  Pure bullshit meant to make you ignore everything else IMPORTANT and run to the polls like an idiot to vote against fags

[Straw Man]

But, if they're so concerned about the rules, they should go back to the highest standard (i.e. adultery being grounds for divorce).

Sheesh - your posts are loonnnggg and ridiculous.

I thought Adultery was grounds for DEATH in the OT.

Here's an idea, why don't you make up a huge list of silly rules for yourself and let everyone else do the same for themselves (or not)

[Deicide]

I think the Israeli men in that story were doing far more than mistreating their wives....

[loco]

But it isn't really about protecting the sanctity of marriage.  It's a fear of the secularization of society.

Hi Deedee!  Are you sure about that?  How do you know that pastors are not instead afraid of losing their freedom of religion, afraid of lawsuits for refusing to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies?  If pastors sincerely believe in the Bible, which clearly condemns homosexuality, they cannot in good faith conduct a same sex marriage ceremony.  But I can see same sex couples suing pastors and churches for refusing to conduct their marriage ceremony.  I'm not an American, but I see legitimate reasons for Christians, and other groups in America opposing the legalization of same sex marriage, at least for the sake of religious freedom.

[drkaje]

Hi Deedee!  Are you sure about that?  How do you know that pastors are not instead afraid of losing their freedom of religion, afraid of lawsuits for refusing to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies?  If pastors sincerely believe in the Bible, which clearly condemns homosexuality, they cannot in good faith conduct a same sex marriage ceremony.  But I can see same sex couples suing pastors and churches for refusing to conduct their marriage ceremony.  I'm not an American, but I see legitimate reasons for Christians to oppose the legalization of same sex marriage, at least for the sake of religious freedom.

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Our forefathers were puritans but still understood the dangers a state religion posed to personal freedoms.

[loco]

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Our forefathers were puritans but still understood the dangers a state religion posed to personal freedoms.

True, but how can you have both in this case?  Suing a pastor for refusing to conduct a same sex marriage ceremony is not religious freedom.  His beliefs in this case do not harm anyone, but he is unable to exercise his religious freedom.  I did not say whether or not I oppose same sex marriage.  I only stated that I see the above as a legitimate reason to oppose it.

[drkaje]

True, but how can you have both in this case?  Suing a pastor for refusing to conduct a same sex marriage ceremony is not religious freedom.  His beliefs in this case do not harm anyone, but he is unable to exercise his religious freedom.  I did not say whether or not I oppose same sex marriage.  I only stated that I see the above as a legitimate reason to oppose it.

Problem is imposing one's beliefs on others. I have a right to opinions about fat people but not to stop McDonald's from selling them food.

[MCWAY]

OK, I do NOT get this shit.  It's a stupid wedge issue anyway but I have one question that makes the hole thing stupid as hell. 

This sanctity of marriage bullshit.  I hear all this God says marriage is between a man an woman.  This is that their bitch revolves around how GOD defines marriage.  Well ok, where's the uproar for justice of the peace/non religious marriage?  If they didn't have a bitch with that which is outside the scope of God and religion, how can they have any ground to stand against a state allowing same sex marriage which falls into the same jurisdiction outside religious marriage?  yea you stupid mother fucking idiots, where do you get off honestly?  Again, pull your retarded heads out of your asses and see all of this in perspective and for what it is.  Pure bullshit meant to make you ignore everything else IMPORTANT and run to the polls like an idiot to vote against fags

This may come as a shock to you, Hugo, but people can care about MULTIPLE ISSUES AT THE SAME TIME!!! Just because someone wants to vote for a marriage amendment in their state DOES NOT mean that they are doing so, at the expense of other issues (i.e. the economy, Iraq, gas prices, etc.).

Besides, how much effort does it take to punch (or circle in) "Yes" or "No", next to part of the ballot that has a state's marriage amendment on it?

Here's another news flash. This issue goes BEYOND political parties, race, gender, etc.

Whites voted for marriage amendments.
Blacks voted for marriage amendments.
Latino voted for marriage amendments
Orientals voted for marriage amendments
Democrats voted for marriage amendments
Republicans voted for marriage amendments
"Blue" states voted for marriage amendments
"Red states" voted for marriage amendments
People who voted for Kerry (in 2004) voted for marriage amendments
People who voted for Bush (in 2004) voted for marriage amendments
Christians voted for marriage amendments
Non-Christians voted for marriage amendments

And the list goes on.....

[Deicide]

This may come as a shock to you, Hugo, but people can care about MULTIPLE ISSUES AT THE SAME TIME!!! Just because someone wants to vote for a marriage amendment in their state DOES NOT mean that they are doing so, at the expense of other issues (i.e. the economy, Iraq, gas prices, etc.).

Besides, how much effort does it take to punch (or circle in) "Yes" or "No", next to part of the ballot that has a state's marriage amendment on it?

Here's another news flash. This issue goes BEYOND political parties, race, gender, etc.

Whites voted for marriage amendments.
Blacks voted for marriage amendments.
Latino voted for marriage amendments
Orientals voted for marriage amendments
Democrats voted for marriage amendments
Republicans voted for marriage amendments
"Blue" states voted for marriage amendments
"Red states" voted for marriage amendments
People who voted for Kerry (in 2004) voted for marriage amendments
People who voted for Bush (in 2004) voted for marriage amendments
Christians voted for marriage amendments
Non-Christians voted for marriage amendments

And the list goes on.....

People who are caught up in myopia. Nonsense.

[Deicide]

True, but how can you have both in this case?  Suing a pastor for refusing to conduct a same sex marriage ceremony is not religious freedom.  His beliefs in this case do not harm anyone, but he is unable to exercise his religious freedom.  I did not say whether or not I oppose same sex marriage.  I only stated that I see the above as a legitimate reason to oppose it.

I would say that Christians who don't stone homosexuals to death aren't exercising their religious freedom either.