Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[~candice~]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear ~candice~,

Thanks for the comment.

I think gay marriages and indeed any marriage without the Lord is doomed to fail.

Do you think that all non-christian marriages end up in divorce? Or am I misunderstanding your meaning here?

Regards,

UF

Whenever we deem something to be a failure, it has to be according to some standard. I believe our standards differ. Define what you believe to be the purpose of marriage? My purpose involves serving the Lord together and drawing nearer to Him together. My default then, gay marriages (and secular marriages) "fail". Surely some people in gay or secular marriages are happy enough, but I don't think they have succeeded in the true purpose of marriage.

[esyflw]

I agree with Candice. The rich spiritual presence that Christian heterosexual couples enjoys is something you'll never fathom, UG. And such a life that we Christians declare is something homosexuals can never reach. Based on that standard, Gay marriages fail. They will never reach that high level of completeness.

But lets not forget that the marriage license being given out to Gay couples are not sanctioned under God's law. Therefore we need to remind ourselves that this is a worldly law and it falls under a different standard. Here is what we know from all marriages, Christians or naught:

• 
  
  
• Marriage requires compatibility not just at the point of saying ‘I do,’ but across the entire life span.
  
• Assuming that marriage implies monogamy, the institution itself is counterintuitive to biology.
  
• There is far too much emphasis on ‘weddings’ as opposed to ‘marriages.’
  
• Many couples do not know how to fight fairly.
  
• Marriages solve problems. (sarcastic)
  
• Couples assume that love, sex, children or some combination thereof will be enough.
  

I don't think I'll get any argument that any couple, gay or naught, that can meet or beat this list will be successful in any type of marriage. Anyway, gay marriages is a new thing and here on out is mere speculation and definitely pure entertainment on this forum.

Edited July 13, 2011 by esyflw

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear ~candice~,

Thanks for the comment.

Whenever we deem something to be a failure, it has to be according to some standard. I believe our standards differ. Define what you believe to be the purpose of marriage? My purpose involves serving the Lord together and drawing nearer to Him together. My default then, gay marriages (and secular marriages) "fail". Surely some people in gay or secular marriages are happy enough, but I don't think they have succeeded in the true purpose of marriage.

Thank you for your clarification on your definition of marriage failure. My definition is different. I define marriage failure as divorce.

If a muslim defines marriage failures to be non-islamic marriages, I would consider that muslim to have a very narrow definition and worldview. Just my opinion.

Regards,

UF

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear esyflw,

Thanks for the comment.

The rich spiritual presence that Christian heterosexual couples enjoys is something you'll never fathom, UG.

Perhaps. My non-christian marriage is rich enough, without any need for any spiritual presence.

Regards,

UF

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear ~candice~,

Thanks for the comment.

Whenever we deem something to be a failure, it has to be according to some standard. I believe our standards differ. Define what you believe to be the purpose of marriage? My purpose involves serving the Lord together and drawing nearer to Him together. My default then, gay marriages (and secular marriages) "fail". Surely some people in gay or secular marriages are happy enough, but I don't think they have succeeded in the true purpose of marriage.

Thank you for your clarification on your definition of marriage failure. My definition is different. I define marriage failure as divorce.

Hi UF,

I'd like to point out that in defining failure as divorce, it necessitates by contrast how you'd define success in marriage as well and therefore the purpose of marriage.

If in your estimation a failed marriage is one that ends in divorce, a successful marriage would only need to be characterized by not-divorce, therefore the purpose of marriage would have to be simply to staying united by law. That would have to be the only relevant factor in maintaining a successful marriage.

Therefore, other variables beyond simply remaining united by law would cease to be relevant in establishing the success of the marriage. Husbands and wives might cheat on each other, beat one another, neglect or otherwise abuse each other, move out, relocate to a different country, go to Utah and marry a bunch more people, murder their children, etc. but as long as they don't officially divorce the marriage would be a success. In fact, if any marriage that does not end in divorce is not a failed one, tecnically if someone murdered their spouse to marry someone else they could be classified as a multiple success story.

I submit, that's putting the bar as low as possible without being logically incoherent. Other than maybe King Henry VIII, who would actually consider every marriage that doesn't end in divorce to be a 'success'?

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear OldEnglishSheepdog,

Thanks for the comment.

I'd like to point out that in defining failure as divorce, it necessitates by contrast how you'd define success in marriage as well and therefore the purpose of marriage.

If in your estimation a failed marriage is one that ends in divorce, a successful marriage would only need to be characterized by not-divorce, therefore the purpose of marriage would have to be simply to staying united by law. That would have to be the only relevant factor in maintaining a successful marriage.

Therefore, other variables beyond simply remaining united by law would cease to be relevant in establishing the success of the marriage. Husbands and wives might cheat on each other, beat one another, neglect or otherwise abuse each other, move out, relocate to a different country, go to Utah and marry a bunch more people, murder their children, etc. but as long as they don't officially divorce the marriage would be a success. In fact, if any marriage that does not end in divorce is not a failed one, tecnically if someone murdered their spouse to marry someone else they could be classified as a multiple success story.

I submit, that's putting the bar as low as possible without being logically incoherent. Other than maybe King Henry VIII, who would actually consider every marriage that doesn't end in divorce to be a 'success'?

No doubt there are many factors that go into a successful marriage, I was only pointing to one objective measure of a failed marriage....divorce. There are plenty of marriages that have failed that do not result in divorce.

However, to define all marriages to be failures based on the lack of a particular religion/relationship with a certain god, I think is laughable, and logically incoherent. Especially considering that christianity has only been around for 2000 years, and marriages (both successes and failures) have been happening way before then.

BTW, polygamy has not legal in any of the US since the 1890s.

Regards,

UF

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Dear OldEnglishSheepdog,

Thanks for the comment.

I'd like to point out that in defining failure as divorce, it necessitates by contrast how you'd define success in marriage as well and therefore the purpose of marriage.

If in your estimation a failed marriage is one that ends in divorce, a successful marriage would only need to be characterized by not-divorce, therefore the purpose of marriage would have to be simply to staying united by law. That would have to be the only relevant factor in maintaining a successful marriage.

Therefore, other variables beyond simply remaining united by law would cease to be relevant in establishing the success of the marriage. Husbands and wives might cheat on each other, beat one another, neglect or otherwise abuse each other, move out, relocate to a different country, go to Utah and marry a bunch more people, murder their children, etc. but as long as they don't officially divorce the marriage would be a success. In fact, if any marriage that does not end in divorce is not a failed one, tecnically if someone murdered their spouse to marry someone else they could be classified as a multiple success story.

I submit, that's putting the bar as low as possible without being logically incoherent. Other than maybe King Henry VIII, who would actually consider every marriage that doesn't end in divorce to be a 'success'?

No doubt there are many factors that go into a successful marriage, I was only pointing to one objective measure of a failed marriage....divorce. There are plenty of marriages that have failed that do not result in divorce.

However, to define all marriages to be failures based on the lack of a particular religion/relationship with a certain god, I think is laughable, and logically incoherent.

It actually isn't logically incoherent.

Logical coherency only requires the ability to imagine that something could exist in a possible world. For instance, there is no possible world in which someone could both be both married to a person and not married to them at the same time, just like there cannot be a world in which there would be a circular square.

If it can be imagined in a possible world that the criteria for all successful marriages was fulfilled by members of a specific religion, then it is totally logically coherent, completely irrespective of the truth of that claim in the world in which we live.

Especially considering that christianity has only been around for 2000 years, and marriages (both successes and failures) have been happening way before then.

That actually wouldn't impact the extent to which it is or is not possible that marriages were not successful before hand, and Christianity stems from a tradition that predates the inception of the Nation of Israel. If Christianity is in fact true, then Jesus has been around since the beginning of time, and the faithful of God have always been united in Him.

But I wasn't actually pressing the assertion that only Christians have successful marriages. I don't think I'd agree with that without a list of qualifiers a page long, and then it would kind of be a different point anyways.

BTW, polygamy has not legal in any of the US since the 1890s.

I know, but it was meant to illustrate the point, not necessarily be a one-to-one reflection of current capability.

Besides, we've opened the door to redefining marriage, so why not revisit some antiquated laws of prohibition?

[~candice~]

Especially considering that christianity has only been around for 2000 years, and marriages (both successes and failures) have been happening way before then.

Not really UF, Christianity is merely the fulfillment of prophecies we see in (biblical) Judaism (which has been around from the beginning).

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear ~candice~,

Thanks for the comment.

Not really UF, Christianity is merely the fulfillment of prophecies we see in (biblical) Judaism (which has been around from the beginning).

That really depends on what you mean by the "beginning". Are you a YEC?

Regards,

UF

[~candice~]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear ~candice~,

Thanks for the comment.

Not really UF, Christianity is merely the fulfillment of prophecies we see in (biblical) Judaism (which has been around from the beginning).

That really depends on what you mean by the "beginning". Are you a YEC?

Regards,

UF

Beginning = start of mankind. Adam walked with the Christian/Jewish God.

I don't think the bible dates the earth. I suspect Adam and Eve were literal people who lived somewhere between 60 and 200 000 years ago. I must clarify though that I do believe in a literal Genesis, I just believe it was highly telescoped for various reasons, mostly so that the names in the telescoped genealogies would give a message. Because I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old I guess I am not strictly a YEC although I retain their literal interpretation. Does that answer your question?