Pro-family activist warns of consequences of redefining marriage

Harpuia · Apr 30, 2007

Morcova said:
Apparently.

Yeah..

I'm reminding myself one thing. When I marry, that person is someone who I know I can stay with forever, and never having to regret it 20, 25 years down the road. There are few couples who can actually genuinely pull that off.

One couple I can think of (and you all might not agree with me) is Ronald and Nancy Reagan. I had to do a report on them for one HON 400 seminar class and boy, I couldn't believe how attached those two were, you'd have thought they were Siamese twins.

Wish there were more couples like that today on the news...

crazyfingers · Apr 30, 2007

Harpuia said:
One couple I can think of (and you all might not agree with me) is Ronald and Nancy Reagan. I had to do a report on them for one HON 400 seminar class and boy, I couldn't believe how attached those two were, you'd have thought they were Siamese twins.

Wish there were more couples like that today on the news...

Ya well, Nancy Reagan is Ronald's 2nd wife. Ron was first married to Jane Wyman.

Anyway, being from the real pro-marriage state of Massachusetts, I personally know of only two couples who have had a divorce. One is my Aunt who divorced about 40 years ago. The other is a couple whose kid I used to babysit when I was in my teens. I might know other people who have been divorced I can't think of anyone.

Morcova · Apr 30, 2007

Harpuia said:
Yeah..

I'm reminding myself one thing. When I marry, that person is someone who I know I can stay with forever, and never having to regret it 20, 25 years down the road. There are few couples who can actually genuinely pull that off.

One couple I can think of (and you all might not agree with me) is Ronald and Nancy Reagan. I had to do a report on them for one HON 400 seminar class and boy, I couldn't believe how attached those two were, you'd have thought they were Siamese twins.

Wish there were more couples like that today on the news...

I tend to agree with you about the Reagans.

I think one of the biggest problems marriage has today is a sense that marriage is going to be like dating... but forever... it's not. It's hard sometimes, sometimes it's easy, it always takes work. People who don't realize that quickly get disillusioned and seek a divorce.

Marriage like everything else that is good requires work.

Harpuia · Apr 30, 2007

crazyfingers said:
Ya well, Nancy Reagan is Ronald's 2nd wife. Ron was first married to Jane Wyman.

Anyway, being from the real pro-marriage state of Massachusetts, I personally know of only two couples who have had a divorce. One is my Aunt who divorced about 40 years ago. The other is a couple whose kid I used to babysit when I was in my teens. I might know other people who have been divorced I can't think of anyone.

Well, tbh, he only gave evangelicals lip service himself.

LovesTruth · Apr 30, 2007

Harpuia said:
Well, tbh, he only gave evangelicals lip service himself.

You are mistaken. His victory over the USSR, his cutting taxes, and his support for Israel were brave acts of support for our beliefs and values.

You see, when the righteous rule, the people rejoice. God set up the universe to work according to His plan... and politics is included.

I am glad to clarify the Great One's Spiritual legacy.

fanatiquefou · Apr 30, 2007

LovesTruth said:
You are mistaken. His victory over the USSR, his cutting taxes, and his support for Israel were brave acts of support for our beliefs and values.

None of these things have anything to do with the fundamental aspects of being a Christian.

Rebekka · May 1, 2007

In countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized, that action has had a negative impact on traditional marriage, the AFA of PA spokeswoman says. "A prime example is the Netherlands," she notes: "That's the area of the world that first legalized same-sex marriage, and we're now looking at 80 percent of all births [being] out of wedlock."
Now, in the Netherlands, marriage "just is not important anymore," Gramley asserts. "And so people just aren't getting married," she says, "because when you redefine these foundations, the bedrock of a nation, then you redefine that entire nation and that entire society."

That's utter nonsense. Over here, 80% of births are NOT out of wedlock, and people are getting married all the time! Marriage is more popular than in the 1980's, when gay marriage didn't exist yet.

And I don't know anyone who wouldn't get married to the love of his or her life, only because gays could, too. What kind of statement would that be? And do you think gays would care? That just doesn't make sense.

Only read the first page, will catch up later.

Rebekka · May 1, 2007

Harpuia said:
Then I wonder tho... what is behind the Dutch no longer getting married?

They are getting married! :doh:

Hey, I'm married myself!

The article apparently just made things up - and who's going to find out? You can say all sorts of things about the Netherlands - it's tiny and far away, so in the US, not many will know enough of us and then you will believe all sorts of nonsense about us. We're Sodom and Gomorra, people will always believe the worst.

CFISNOWHERESYFORUMS · May 1, 2007

They are getting married! Hey, I'm married myself! The article apparently just made things up - and who's going to find out? You can say all sorts of things about the Netherlands - it's tiny and far away, so in the US, not many will know enough of us and then you will believe all sorts of nonsense about us. We're Sodom and Gomorra, people will always believe the worst.

I hate to break it to you, but the fact that marriage is collapsing in the Netherlands is correct.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602230800.asp

CFISNOWHERESYFORUMS · May 1, 2007

Equal protection of the law and equal rights should not be subject to majority rule.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that there is no equal protection violation when it comes to a state defining marriage in the traditional way. That decision is binding to this day.

That's the law, you have to live with it.

CFISNOWHERESYFORUMS · May 1, 2007

Actually thats about right, plus or minus about 5%. The TOTAL number of divorces is roughly half of what the marraige rate is when you look at ALL types of divorce.

That's actually not right. The real number is about 30%.

CFISNOWHERESYFORUMS · May 1, 2007

You mean like the "gay marraige will destroy marraige" myth?

What's "marraige"?

Enrichment journal also gives simliar divorce statistics in America
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

To establish an actual divorce rate requires tracking and analyzing significant samples of actual marriages through decades, which is not an easy task. Recent US scholarship based on such longterm tracking, reported for example in the New York Times on April 19, 2005, has found that about 60% of all marriages that result in divorce do so in the first decade, and more than 80% do so within the first 20 years; that the percentage of all marriages that eventually end in divorce peaked in the United States at about 41% around 1980, and has been slowly declining ever since, standing by 2002 at around 31%

Of course the most interesting thing is, if you really cared about marriage you'd be trying to get the goverment to repeal the no-fault divorce laws.

Nice red herring. Guess what, the same people who are fighting to save marriage from redefinition are also the same people who are fighting to end no-fault divorce and establish convenant marriage laws.

Take a wild Guess who fights ending no-fault divorce and even establishing VOLUNTARY covenant marriages?

Rebekka · May 1, 2007

mayatesnomas said:
[/COLOR][/FONT]

I hate to break it to you, but the fact that marriage is collapsing in the Netherlands is correct.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602230800.asp

So, this article says 40% of births is out of wedlock. The OP said 80% - quite a difference. Today I found a percentage of 20%.

How many births in the US are out of wedlock?

I see no correlation with gay marriage. Would you divorce, or not get married, if gays could marry too?

Rebekka · May 1, 2007

In fact, the sharp decline of Dutch marriage strongly suggests that gay marriage weakens marriage, not the reverse.

hahaha, sorry, how would that be? My marriage suffers because gays can marry too???

Also, the "fast collapsing" of marriage in the Netherlands is a huge exaggeration. In fact, young people are more traditional than their parents. I think in 10-15 years time we will have more marriages.

this whole discussion makes me both giggle and :yawn:

.

CFISNOWHERESYFORUMS · May 1, 2007

So, this article says 40% of births is out of wedlock. The OP said 80% - quite a difference. Today I found a percentage of 20%.

How many births in the US are out of wedlock?

I see no correlation with gay marriage. Would you divorce, or not get married, if gays could marry too?

That question, (one that homosexual activists use all the time and erroneously think is the end all, gotcha question) is a red herring.

We can't debate same-sex marriage on this forum, so I can't get into WHY it's a red herring with you here, but you are welcome to do a bit of research, (Numerous Courts have addressed the question in various opinions, so I'd suggest starting there.) into the answer.

CFISNOWHERESYFORUMS · May 1, 2007

hahaha, sorry, how would that be? My marriage suffers because gays can marry too???

Again, this is a red herring, logically fallacious question. I am suprised that homosexual activists keep using it as a talking point. (Actually, thinking about it, I am not suprised because it's attached to emotionalism which liberalism needs.)

Again, we can't talk about the WHY here on this particular forum. Posts that get into debating the marriage issue will be reported by both sides as they violate NC&E rules.

Also, the "fast collapsing" of marriage in the Netherlands is a huge exaggeration. In fact, young people are more traditional than their parents. I think in 10-15 years time we will have more marriages.

this whole discussion makes me both giggle and .

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm577.cfm

Rebekka · May 1, 2007

mayatesnomas said:
That question, (one that homosexual activists use all the time and erroneously think is the end all, gotcha question) is a red herring.

We can't debate same-sex marriage on this forum, so I can't get into WHY it's a red herring with you here, but you are welcome to do a bit of research, (Numerous Courts have addressed the question in various opinions, so I'd suggest starting there.) into the answer.

Sorry, I don't follow you here. We're debating same sex marriage already, aren't we? And why would my question "Would you divorce, or not get married, if gays could marry too?" not be valid, if your conclusion is exactly that marriages suffer from the existence of gay marriage??? I don't see the red-herringness of that.

CFISNOWHERESYFORUMS · May 1, 2007

Sorry, I don't follow you here. We're debating same sex marriage already, aren't we?

No, we are not. You can't debate same-sex marriage, or anything else on this forum for that matter.

This isn't a debate forum. This is the N&CE forum.

And why would my question "Would you divorce, or not get married, if gays could marry too?" not be valid, if your conclusion is exactly that marriages suffer from the existence of gay marriage??? I don't see the red-herringness of that.

I can't explain why the question is a red herring on this forum. It violates forum rules. This isn't one of the "debate" forums.

(Not that you can actually "debate" on a message board anyway.)

Rebekka · May 1, 2007

mayatesnomas said:
No, we are not. You can't debate same-sex marriage, or anything else on this forum for that matter.

This isn't a debate forum. This is the N&CE forum.

I can't explain why the question is a red herring on this forum. It violates forum rules. This isn't one of the "debate" forums.

(Not that you can actually "debate" on a message board anyway.)

OK, I'm really confused now. You can say that something is a red herring, but you can't say WHY? Then how can you expect me to accept that it is a red herring? If you can't explain why, all I can do is ignore it. I'm very sorry.

And how can anyone state that the effects of gay marriage are that non-gay marriage suffers, if you can't discuss that?????? I mean, to me it makes this thread empty. Something is stated, yet anything that anyone says about it is against the rules. Seems to me that the OP is not a sensible thing to post then, considering debating isn't allowed here.

I agree that debate online is never a real debate.

I think it would be far better to talk to you in person.

DhaliClone · May 1, 2007

mayatesnomas said:
That's the law, you have to live with it.

I love how when the Judicial System interprets something in a conservative way, conservative's rejoice; but, when they interpret it in a liberal way, conservative's complain about "legislating from the bench" and "activist judges." That's quite a double standard, but not surprising.

mayatesnomas said:
I can't explain why the question is a red herring on this forum.

That's awesome.

"It's a red herring."
"Why?"
"I can't tell you, it just is, m'kay?"

Your excuse that this isn't a debate forum is BS, because you've been involved in a number of them here. It's awfully convenient that you're respecting that rule now, considering you haven't done so in the past (as most people haven't).

RebekkaH said:
You can say that something is a red herring, but you can't say WHY? Then how can you expect me to accept that it is a red herring? If you can't explain why, all I can do is ignore it. I'm very sorry.

Don't apologize. He's not explaining why because he can't, for reasons other than "this isn't a debate forum."

Basically, it's his way of rationalizing why he doesn't have to hear opposing arguments. Closing your ears and saying "Nuh uh" and "because I said so" are typical neo-conservative tactics.

Pro-family activist warns of consequences of redefining marriage

Oldie... very very oldie...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Oldie... very very oldie...

Well-Known Member

you know, for kids!

meow meow meow meow meow meow

meow meow meow meow meow meow

Amor verdadero no aprueba pecado.

Amor verdadero no aprueba pecado.

Amor verdadero no aprueba pecado.

Amor verdadero no aprueba pecado.

meow meow meow meow meow meow

meow meow meow meow meow meow

Amor verdadero no aprueba pecado.

Amor verdadero no aprueba pecado.

meow meow meow meow meow meow

Amor verdadero no aprueba pecado.

meow meow meow meow meow meow

Well-Known Member

Similar threads