The Defense of Marriage in America

From “gay” relationships to cohabitation to serial monogamy — every substitute for lifelong, God-based marriage has at least two things that are true of it: (1) It attempts to get the benefits of marriage (especially the sexual ones) without the same level of commitment, sacrifice or need for character growth. (2) It does not benefit children or society the way real marriage does, and in fact may do much harm to them.

“Gay” marriage is by no means the only factor that hurts real marriage. I have to recognize my own failed, “traditional” marriage (entered into much too lightly and inevitably ending in divorce) as being just as much part of the problem as anything. So I'm not pointing any fingers at anyone that aren't also pointing at myself.

dcm
You assert that if a marriage isn't God-based, that it can't have the same level of commitment, sacrifice or need for character growth, benefit children, benefit society as a real God-based marriage. My wife and I, both nonbelievers were married under civil circumstances. Your assertion would hold true for people like us as well would it not, since we reject the idea that the Bible or a God is the source of marriage

By “God-based marriage,” I just mean marriage as God defined it at the beginning — one man, one woman, for life. So yours would seem to fit that basic definition of “God-based” even if you don't personally acknowledge God.

dcm

You're right. One who personally acknowledges God and one who doesn't- that is the key. It is all a matter of one's personal opinion or personal belief system, as to whether marriage is God-based or not..

God is a matter of reality, not one's personal opinion or belief system. There wouldn't be real marriage if God hadn't instituted it. You may not accept that, but look at the less-beneficial and more selfish substitutes that people who don't acknowledge God come up with. And that's the whole point here.

I understand what you are saying, but because a man or even a group of men decree that God is a 'reality' does not make it true.Man has a history of being wrong on such matters. Throughout history and time, men have decreed all sorts of different gods as 'reality'.

They felt as strongly as you that there God was 'reality'. So, if you step back and objectively look at all of mankind and humanity, it seems each man decrees his god to be the real one. That makes it a personal choice and opinion based, if you observe the reality of the true history of mankind's religious beliefs.

You have a good point that a man or group declaring that God is real doesn't make it true.

However, the reverse is also true: a man or group declaring that God doesn't exist doesn't make it true, either.

One interesting consideration regarding these two truths is that if DCM is wrong, he's just worm food and won't know the difference; if the atheist is wrong…well, it won't be pretty.

It's very important for each person to exhaustively settle this question before time runs out.

” if DCM is wrong, he's just worm food…..if the atheist is wrong..well, it won't be pretty” That consideration( as you call it) or comment is frequently heard from people of the Christian and Muslim faiths. I heard it often in the Baptist Church I attended in Fort Worth, Texas.

Then I finally realized that things that are uncomfortable to think about or predictions of dire consequences by a person or faith, have NO BEARING on whether it is true and have no place in this consersation.It is a childhood tactic of telling someone that they will get beat up if they don't believe and do like you do—adult style. I am full aware of what the Bible says will happen if I reject it, so you have to ask why would someone else feel compelled to repeated tell you ” If you are wrong, you will go to hell”.

'Fear of consequences or negative considerations is suppose to affect how someone thinks if something is true ? The answer is no'. What a pitiful way for a person to make a decision–fear.Jesus never gave in to 'considerations'

The Christian will say that they are not trying to make you feel fearful, but merely pointing out the truth and that they are concerned for you. I believe that is a true concern of some, but it also is an attempt to introduce fear into the concept of trying to determine if something is true or not,

It has worked on many in the past who let these frequent reminders of eternal suffering affect how they think.I find that sad

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant to convey. I didn't mean to convey that the statement has any bearing on the truth or accuracy of the truth claims of the Bible; that would be illogical.

What I meant to convey is the utter importance of being absolutely certain based on the best available information and deduction of what the truth is. There is an element of fear involved, but it is certainly a healthy one. If we knew that there were two tunnels before us and that we have no choice but to pass through one of them, and if we also knew that down one of them was a pack of hungry bears and down the other was safety…we would do well to listen to our fear of being eaten to determine whether that alleged danger of bears was real. Because if we take off down that tunnel thinking “There are no bears in here,” and we find out too late there really are, we're going to regret that we didn't think it through better before we chose to go down that tunnel–but it will be too late.

If I was born thinking 'there were no bears' and never gave it a second thought again and then just indiscriminately choose one tunnel ,then you would be right.But I have given it a second, third, fourth,fifth thought etc. and my personal evidence, to me, says bears in the tunnel is such a remote, remote possibility that it shouldn't even be used as a factor to determine something completely different–the existence of the supernatural.

Your personal earthly experience tells you the bears are there and my personal experience says they could be, but it is so remote that it shouldn't even be considered as a criteria to make such a decision. I don't have an absolute 'No Bear' policy like your example uses .

Who knows, maybe there is just a scared rabbit in the tunnel. I think that is remote as well however