[grampawombat]

This is an interesting conversation, but I don't think it is about liberation theology, an area of religious inquiry and exchange with very specific characteristics. Among those are the following:

God has a “preferential option for the poor.” God loves us all, but has a particular and specific concern for those with the least. Therefore, God expects us to share that concern and act on it. At its center, Liberation Theology is about action.

Approach the Bible with a “hermeneutic of suspicion.” This means that how we read the Bible depends on our own background and biases. Therefore we always have to be aware of the possibility of “spin” when we, or others, are interpreting it.

This leads to the “hermeneutic circle.” It goes something like this: 1) we read a passage from the Bible, having already engaged in a specific action. 2) Based on our own perspective (see above) we interpret what we have read. 3) Based on that interpretation we engage in some new action with regard to other people. 4) Based on that experience we return to the Bible with fresh insights.

Religious Base Communities (Comunidades Ecclesial de Base, or CEBs) are small groups (up to 20 or so) of people in the same location who meet together to read and discuss the Bible. They gain knowledge and insight by relating what they read to their daily lives and sharing their experiences with one another.

Liberation theology has its roots in Latin America, and from that perspective I recommend the following books:

Boff, Leonardo, Church: Charism and Power, New York: Crossroad, 1984
_______, Ecclisiogenesis, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1986
Boff, Clodovis and George V. Pixley, The Bible, the Church, and the Poor, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1989
Brown, Robert McAfee Theology in a New Key: Responding to Liberation Themes, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978
_______, Unexpected News: Reading the Bible with Third World Eyes, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984
_______, Spirituality and Liberation: Overcoming the Great Fallacy, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988
_______, Gustavo Gutiérrez: An Introduction to Liberation Theology, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990
________, Liberation Theology: An Introductory Guide, Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993
Friere, Paolo, and Antonio Faundez, Learning to Question: A Pedagogy of Liberation, New York: Continuum, 1989
Gutiérrez, Gustavo, A Theology of Liberation, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1973–The “original text” on Liberation Theology
_______, We Drink from our Own Wells, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1984–This book is more spiritual in its approach
_______, The Truth Shall Make you Free, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990
Míguez Bonino, José, Toward a Christian Political Ethics, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983
Segundo, Juan Luis, The Liberation of Theology, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1976
Sobrino, Jon, Christology at the Crossroads, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1978
_______, The True Church and the Poor, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1985

There are other works on feminist and ethnic theologies that include the following:

Cone, James H., God of the Oppressed, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1975–Liberation Theology from a black scholar’s perspective.
Harrison, Beverly Wildung, Making the Connections (Carol S. Robb, Ed.)
Reuther, Rosemary Radford, To Change the World, New York: Crossroad, 1981
_______(Ed.), Religion and Sexism, New York: Simon & Schuster
Other relevant authors include Jim Wallis, and Daniel Berrigan for general themes; Gayraud S. Wilmore, James H. Cone, Andrew Young, and Cornel West for Black Liberation; Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Virginia Mollenkott, and Letty M. Russell for Feminist Liberation; Roy I Sano, Asian-American; Vine Deloria, Jr., Native American; and Cesar Chavez, Hispanic American.

[October's Autumn]

David, on Mar 28 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

Why not? Who is controlling your access to posting?

Does the site block access to other forums outside of the debate forum for those who are not progressive? Or is it simply a courtesy that those who are conservative do not post in other areas?

[David]

grampawombat, on Mar 28 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

This is an interesting conversation, but I don't think it is about liberation theology, an area of religious inquiry and exchange with very specific characteristics.

You are technically correct. I think that this conversation was so named to support "liberation" from boundaries. The conversation (I think) is about boundaries. If you have some input on that I would like to hear it. You may want to start a new conversation on Liberation Theology as properly defined by you.

[David]

October, on Mar 28 2008, 09:06 PM, said:

Does the site block access to other forums outside of the debate forum for those who are not progressive? Or is it simply a courtesy that those who are conservative do not post in other areas?

I don't know what Gary is talking about.

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

I'm going to reply inside the quotes so don't skim the quotes too fast... I'm only doing this to expedite my reply it shouldn't make too much of a difference or be anymore difficult to read I hope...

David, on Mar 28 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

Hi Gary,

You replied once before but it was not accepted? - Yes, I have been blocked from participating in several sites Beliefnet was one where my posts were removed or prevented not that I wrote anything wrong it was a prejudice by the moderator, they can stop or block your activity in a variety of ways and they don't even have to let you know that they are doing it... Like driving I have no right, it is a privilege and my privilege to post was revoked.

Why not? Who is controlling your access to posting? - See above, it would be the moderator or moderators I get put on limited access and denied the right to participate, by asking me questions you have opened a door for me to be here and communicate with all of you, a privilege that can be revoked at any time.

I would say that is a boundary that you need to understand.
What is the reason for that boundary? -

They perceive that I will harm their community so they have put up boundaries and blocked me from having access to communicate with them. Does this sound like one reaching out to be loved and the loves then run away? Kind of like a sad love story where people have followed the wrong path? Imagine the pain of GOD reaching out to humanity and they turned away with their own interpretations refusing to truly love GOD... Tears fall from the sky... Fire and Rain, emotional pain and people refuse to listen and see the many words lost unread and unheard because people were prevented from speaking or communicating or they chose not to say a word. The love that was lost the energy or power to be, removed or cast out, the one true GOD denied so that others could profit and deceive the masses.

I understand you do not like boundaries.
Yet you set up a boundary for gay/lesbian couples.
Where did this boundary come from? - You say I have set up a boundary, I say that it is a definitional frame work a problem on your end over words and terms. A moral code is established and this is written on the heart and in the mind there is only one way to communicate clearly and that is to be able to define an item properly, one term, one word, one definition... Define for me Civil Liberty and Civil Right... The way that I see it we have two phrases with two different words that mean the exact same thing, what we have is the ability to create confussion when talking to each other, is confussion good?

I do not understand how same sex marriage threatens our world.
Why is this boundary important to you when other boundaries are not? - See above, the point is that Same sex unions are civil contracts for defining the same relationships that men and women enjoy as when men and women come together as a couple married two as one the only caveat is that the wedding should be binding for the purpose of the couple to procreate. If from the onset of the relationship you are not binding yourself to another for the purpose of procreation then you should be honest in defining your relationship as a civil union. Now the civil union should not be any different in status such as economic or benefit a civil union should be no less glamourous than a marriage. I do not make a difference in my thinking as to one being favored over the other in the sight of GOD but I do see GOD communicating with us in specific terms, knowing one from the other and we are to be honest with each other and GOD.

What boundaries do you find to be a problem? - Boundaries that prevent the truth from being exposed...

Can you see any positive reasons for having boundaries? - I would write to you about the justice of GOD and that would mean that if a boundary prevents the truth from being known or told and if only one side of the story is presented and a question is asked only as a statement not really permitted an answer then the boundary is negative in nature. Do I have rules and expectations? Yes, are they a form of boundary? Yes and No... We certainly could write a book about right and wrongs...

October, on Mar 28 2008, 11:06 PM, said:

Does the site block access to other forums outside of the debate forum for those who are not progressive? - This site has blocked my access to it on many occassions... For months maybe nearly a year I was not even allowed to log in...

Or is it simply a courtesy that those who are conservative do not post in other areas? - I don't know about this...

David, on Mar 29 2008, 10:32 AM, said:

I don't know what Gary is talking about. - See above, not being allowed to log in or not being allowed to post, I've had quite a time submitting many posts that wouldn't get posted, so I've written a lot and I've lost a lot that I've written, one thing that the founder of Microsoft encouraged in their literature was to save, save, save... Sometimes that is easier said than done... All I can really say is that little things add up in the end...

[McKenna]

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Apr 2 2008, 10:06 PM, said:

Define for me Civil Liberty and Civil Right... The way that I see it we have two phrases with two different words that mean the exact same thing, what we have is the ability to create confussion when talking to each other, is confussion good?

Actually, there is a distinction between civil liberties and civil rights (at least in the United States). Civil liberties are those rights granted in the Constitution (and its Amendments). Civil rights are those rights granted to us by additional laws/policies. (This is all according to my government text book and what I've been taught in that course, so perhaps definitions vary, but this is what I know at least.)

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Apr 2 2008, 10:06 PM, said:

See above, the point is that Same sex unions are civil contracts for defining the same relationships that men and women enjoy as when men and women come together as a couple married two as one the only caveat is that the wedding should be binding for the purpose of the couple to procreate. If from the onset of the relationship you are not binding yourself to another for the purpose of procreation then you should be honest in defining your relationship as a civil union. Now the civil union should not be any different in status such as economic or benefit a civil union should be no less glamourous than a marriage. I do not make a difference in my thinking as to one being favored over the other in the sight of GOD but I do see GOD communicating with us in specific terms, knowing one from the other and we are to be honest with each other and GOD.

So, straight couples that are too old to have children, not able to have children for other medical reasons, or simply don't want children, shouldn't be allowed to get married? What about those couples who aren't sure if they want kids or not? Should they get both a marriage and a civil union just in case?

I'm half-teasing, but seriously, I don't really see the point of defining marriage simply as 'two people coming together for the purpose of procreation.' That's the definition you're giving marriage when you say that's the only difference between it and a civil union. But what business of the government's is that anyway?? And what kind of reason is that to make a distinction between civil unions and marriages?

My mom got remarried and knew she didn't want more kids. My dad's getting remarried this summer. Neither married (the second time anyway) for the purpose of procreation...so should they have 'been honest' and defined their second marriages as 'civil unions' rather than 'marriages'?

If the same rules don't apply to straight people as to gays - then it's a double standard. And since it's ridiculous that an old couple wanting to marry would need to apply for a civil union instead, clearly procreation is not a solid basis for the definition of marriage. Not nowadays anyway.

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Apr 2 2008, 10:06 PM, said:

Does the site block access to other forums outside of the debate forum for those who are not progressive? - This site has blocked my access to it on many occassions... For months maybe nearly a year I was not even allowed to log in...

Perhaps that was a technical error...Nobody could log in last summer (or whenever that was)...and in any case do we even have an active moderator who would have restricted your access to the site?

[October's Autumn]

I found out about a week before I was engaged that I couldn't have children. I guess that means I shouldn't have gotten married. A teacher I work with is over 55 and has fallen love with an old friend from her childhood. They plan to get married but they can't have children since she is past menopause. I guess they shouldn't get married, either.

People who do get married to procreate are really setting themselves up for failure. Marriage goes way beyond have children. My parents are now 63 and will hit the point where they have been married without children longer than they were married with children. If their only reason for getting married was to have children their marriage would have ended years ago!

I think we have pretty much killed the idea that marriage is about having children. Marriage is about companionship.


IMO the US should switch to what some European countries do. You have a "civil union" which gives you all the rights of inheritance, health insurance, etc. Then if you have a religious bent your religious community "marries" you. The legal part with the rights comes from the government, not a religious institution. This would also be helpful for older people in the United States, who, if they marry lose Social Security benefits. They could get married by their religious institution and not get married legally. Thus, those who are in a bind between practicality and religious beliefs would have the benefit of marriage without the penalty.

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

The whole spin on this discussion has twisted in many varied directions.

From definition to blending and benefit both for and against what is personally good.

Companionship and family united for profit legally or religiously...

How do we end up with muddy waters and confusion trying to define young love that should never die...

Why do people end up divorced?

We are dancing all around the real issues, you can have this and that or that and this, but what do you call it?

How can we make our world fair for everyone?

How can we be brought together and remove the walls that are boundaries erected to destroy or divide the truth into false accounts worthless fabric spun to control and punish the innocent.

Life is much harder to live when lies rule the day, when I was married I was informed that I was part of a team and where I would go so would go with me the one that I married... That was a lie!

I was required to live and give all I had, and she never gave or brought all that was hers into our life... Our life is much harder now and the truth is still not known, the truth is being covered up by a veil of lies spun to destroy what we brought together...

Back to the beginning, back to the drawing board, what is a mate? What is the purpose to connecting with another person who is interested in Loving me... Who wants my love and wants to live with me and why? I thought that I was married, but I've found out that I was civilly united for the purpose of living and giving life to two children so that they could witness the destruction of that previous relationship which is like a curse that has hurt several generations of my family on the paternal side as a result the social avalanche of bad choices that four of five daughters on the maternal side proves that there is a flaw in the teachings of love for the offspring and the turmoil that I had to suffer as a result of one lie piled ontop of another.

So I got married and we had children and we shouldn't have been married because while my wife professed to love me she proved that she couldn't possibly love me her actions were just the opposite of love and trust so we should have never been married but I didn't know the truth until I looked back over time... I should have understood the first sign that I was given and I should have stopped there because there was no love, and I thought that love would grow, but others got involved and thoroughly destroyed the fragile life that existed, doctor the patient was dead before they arrived we could not bring life to the dead, (Probably a bad attempt at humor, but even Jesus couldn't cure people that didn't want to be cured...) First in order to be healed you had to know you needed a cure, you would have to believe that the healer could cure you so you had to believe in the love as a gift... I have more to add about heretics and blasphemy in another thread that involves the omnipotence of GOD...

As for the definitions between Civil liberties or rights, the violation of any of the laws that strip the inalienable human rights should be exposed and corrected... The fix is simple, the rule of law should be upheld here in America as an example for others to follow.

[McKenna]

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Apr 5 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

The whole spin on this discussion has twisted in many varied directions.

Gary, I'm sorry to hear about your marital problems, and sorry that you think the discussion has been twisted, but I don't feel you actually addressed what I (and OA) were trying to say, and I think you wrongly accused me/us of twisting your words.

Look. Here's what you said:

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Apr 5 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

...the point is that Same sex unions are civil contracts for defining the same relationships that men and women enjoy as when men and women come together as a couple married two as one the only caveat is that the wedding should be binding for the purpose of the couple to procreate. If from the onset of the relationship you are not binding yourself to another for the purpose of procreation then you should be honest in defining your relationship as a civil union. Now the civil union should not be any different in status such as economic or benefit a civil union should be no less glamourous than a marriage.

Therefore, it appears that the only difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union" is an intention to procreate. You said they are no different in status, still have all the same benefits, and that "the wedding should be binding for the purpose of the couple to procreate." At the risk of being repetitious, you also said, "If from the onset of the relationship you are not binding yourself to another for the purpose of procreation then you should be honest in defining your relationship as a civil union."

I am repeating all that you said in order to demonstrate that I was not twisting your words.

If a marriage is defined as a civil union + an intention to procreate, then people who have no intention or ability to procreate cannot get married and must instead get a civil union. This includes homosexuals, people who medically cannot have children, people who don't want children, and people who are too old to have children. Thus, it includes both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Therefore, to say that homosexuals can't marry while all heterosexuals can because homosexuals can't procreate is to create an unfair double standard. Heterosexuals that cannot or do not want to procreate should not by this definition of marriage be allowed to get married, yet I do not see you arguing for that.

Therefore, since the law is supposed to be fair, there is no reason for homosexuals to be denied to right to marry simply because they cannot procreate.

None of what I have said is twisting your words.

October, on Apr 3 2008, 09:29 PM, said:

I think we have pretty much killed the idea that marriage is about having children. Marriage is about companionship.

I certainly hope so!

October, on Apr 3 2008, 09:29 PM, said:

IMO the US should switch to what some European countries do. You have a "civil union" which gives you all the rights of inheritance, health insurance, etc. Then if you have a religious bent your religious community "marries" you. The legal part with the rights comes from the government, not a religious institution. This would also be helpful for older people in the United States, who, if they marry lose Social Security benefits. They could get married by their religious institution and not get married legally. Thus, those who are in a bind between practicality and religious beliefs would have the benefit of marriage without the penalty.

I've always felt this would be the most fair thing to do - everyone gets a 'civil union' from the state, and anyone who wants to (and is allowed to by their religion) can be married in their religion. This keeps us from getting into the issues associated with the fact that 'marriage' is defined differently and has different connotations among various religions and cultures. It also keeps the state in its rightful place, IMO - providing the economic and other legal benefits of marriage without interfering in something with religious connotations. It would mean that conservatives could still keep gays from getting married in their own tradition (which I feel is their right), while liberals could marry them, since they feel it is the right thing to do (and I believe is their right as well).

But, unfortunately, I don't see this happening anytime soon.

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

McKenna, on Apr 5 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

Gary, I'm sorry to hear about your marital problems, and sorry that you think the discussion has been twisted, but I don't feel you actually addressed what I (and OA) were trying to say, and I think you wrongly accused me/us of twisting your words.

No McKenna, I appreciate your responses I wasn't accusing anyone specifically of twisting my words and I should have taken more time on this post as it definitely deserved more attention, I just wanted to back away based on what turned out to be my own civil union based upon the impermanence of what I thought was a marriage.

I'm really sorry if you or anyone felt personally attacked, that was not my intent... I saw your points that you all made and felt a bit overwhelmed to address one or any point specifically and so I put down in writing my own experience to provide further and future discussion.

That is the missing piece that I think a true marriage brings people together forever, I wanted to add that earlier, but had left that part out because I thought that I had a marriage and it failed the test of endurance, I should have included that in the original meaning or definition...

That could take the conversation into serial monogamy...

As for the other points again with OA and her situation she married or so it appears with the intent of having children and found out that wan't possible just prior, did that make her marriage a civil union? I would say no because of the intent and I don't know all of the details and they are probably not at all that important... The key is that she loves him and he loves her... Forever I hope...

But of civil unions and marriages should there be an ecomomic punishment on anyone? I'm referring to Social Security benefits and Taxes along with Health Insurance? Should there be any favoritism for anyone or any family?

Should the person with seven children pay the same for healthcare as the individual? Should healthcare cost so much?

These are economic punishments that need to be corrected, our whole economic structure is due to be turned upside down...

We have a long way to go to fix the problems in America...

This post has been edited by TheGreatWhiteBuffalo: 05 April 2008 - 01:10 PM

[October's Autumn]

McKenna, on Apr 5 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

I've always felt this would be the most fair thing to do - everyone gets a 'civil union' from the state, and anyone who wants to (and is allowed to by their religion) can be married in their religion. This keeps us from getting into the issues associated with the fact that 'marriage' is defined differently and has different connotations among various religions and cultures. It also keeps the state in its rightful place, IMO - providing the economic and other legal benefits of marriage without interfering in something with religious connotations. It would mean that conservatives could still keep gays from getting married in their own tradition (which I feel is their right), while liberals could marry them, since they feel it is the right thing to do (and I believe is their right as well).

But, unfortunately, I don't see this happening anytime soon.

The attitude toward gay people has changed tremendously in the last 5-10 years. I believe that gay marriage will be a reality very soon. It will take the Supreme Court to make it happen, just as it has in the past with other Civil Rights. As arrogant as Americans are I think that my solution to follow what is done in European countries may never happen. But it certainly would be a logical solution.


The funny thing is, Churches and Synagogues are already marrying people who are gay. It is the federal government that is way behind the times. Well, it is good see religious folks are finally acting as the headlights and not the tail lights on this one! (Well, some of us, anyhow).

[minsocal]

October, on Apr 5 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

The attitude toward gay people has changed tremendously in the last 5-10 years. I believe that gay marriage will be a reality very soon. It will take the Supreme Court to make it happen, just as it has in the past with other Civil Rights. As arrogant as Americans are I think that my solution to follow what is done in European countries may never happen. But it certainly would be a logical solution.
The funny thing is, Churches and Synagogues are already marrying people who are gay. It is the federal government that is way behind the times. Well, it is good see religious folks are finally acting as the headlights and not the tail lights on this one! (Well, some of us, anyhow).

Thank you. The Pastor of my church is openly gay, and this church does not consider itself a "gay" church. We just wanted the best Pastor we could find.

[McKenna]

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Apr 5 2008, 02:08 PM, said:

That is the missing piece that I think a true marriage brings people together forever, I wanted to add that earlier, but had left that part out because I thought that I had a marriage and it failed the test of endurance, I should have included that in the original meaning or definition...

Okay...I agree, marriages ideally should bring people together forever...but I don't see what that has to do with gay vs. straight couples...so I'm still not satisfied with your reasoning for why straight couples should be allowed to marry, but not gay couples.

October, on Apr 5 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

The attitude toward gay people has changed tremendously in the last 5-10 years. I believe that gay marriage will be a reality very soon. It will take the Supreme Court to make it happen, just as it has in the past with other Civil Rights. As arrogant as Americans are I think that my solution to follow what is done in European countries may never happen. But it certainly would be a logical solution.

Oh, I certainly hope so - and I do think equality will be reached eventually. I agree, however, that Americans will probably never go along with the European system (which I would prefer as well), which is what I was trying to say

October, on Apr 5 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

The funny thing is, Churches and Synagogues are already marrying people who are gay. It is the federal government that is way behind the times. Well, it is good see religious folks are finally acting as the headlights and not the tail lights on this one! (Well, some of us, anyhow).

It is rather ironic (and annoying). I find it silly that people can be bonded by their religion but can't get the rights that bond should bring them from the government!

[October's Autumn]

McKenna, on Apr 6 2008, 02:27 PM, said:

Oh, I certainly hope so - and I do think equality will be reached eventually. I agree, however, that Americans will probably never go along with the European system (which I would prefer as well), which is what I was trying to say

At first I thought you were saying you thought it would be a long time before gay people would be allowed to marry. Then I figured out that you meant adopting the European system. Isn't communication grand?

[McKenna]

October, on Apr 6 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

At first I thought you were saying you thought it would be a long time before gay people would be allowed to marry. Then I figured out that you meant adopting the European system. Isn't communication grand?

Haha indeed

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

Just as communication can break down and really fast when another person won't even listen the definitions allow us to be more clear in our communicating.

I'm having a hard time understanding why a man and a woman can't get married because they are gender opposite and they want to be companions forever.

Why can't same gendered couples have a civil union? The point being that the economic and social benefits should be equal the definition is clear.

Another aspect would be to allow transgendered or bisexual groups to also have civil unions everyone should be free to enter into a living contract.

Now lets break all of these contracts apart, lets say a couple enters into a marriage or civil union or even a group enters into a civil union and then there is a problem we need to break the contract, how should that be done?

Obviously I'm not going to budge on my definitions, so let's talk about the divorce and the divorce rate and why people get divorced.

I guess every contract should have a prenuptial agreement attached.

I find it odd that the word Civil Union is like a curse word and elicits such a gutteral response, this I don't understand... Why is this? I seem to get treated as though I've said something profane when I'm simply applying a logical definition to solve the current controversy.

How do you bridge Pro-Life and Pro-Choice?

What is the common ground?

Conversation and or communication, did he say what I thought that I heard?

He simply said that the two words do have the same meanings in concept but they describe two different situations or elements.

A 4X4x8 is also called a potato

An 'L' Block is also called an 'L' corner but certainly shouldn't be confused with a shoe block...

These are all english words but if you're not a mason or working in the local region where these terms are most commonly used they might completely confuse another person who is not familiar with the lingo. Like a whole new language.

The next series of questions would have to do with why and are we hiding something?

[McKenna]

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Apr 10 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

Just as communication can break down and really fast when another person won't even listen the definitions allow us to be more clear in our communicating.

I'm having a hard time understanding why a man and a woman can't get married because they are gender opposite and they want to be companions forever.

Why can't same gendered couples have a civil union? The point being that the economic and social benefits should be equal the definition is clear.

Another aspect would be to allow transgendered or bisexual groups to also have civil unions everyone should be free to enter into a living contract.

Now lets break all of these contracts apart, lets say a couple enters into a marriage or civil union or even a group enters into a civil union and then there is a problem we need to break the contract, how should that be done?

Obviously I'm not going to budge on my definitions, so let's talk about the divorce and the divorce rate and why people get divorced.

I guess every contract should have a prenuptial agreement attached.

I find it odd that the word Civil Union is like a curse word and elicits such a gutteral response, this I don't understand... Why is this? I seem to get treated as though I've said something profane when I'm simply applying a logical definition to solve the current controversy.

How do you bridge Pro-Life and Pro-Choice?

What is the common ground?

Conversation and or communication, did he say what I thought that I heard?

He simply said that the two words do have the same meanings in concept but they describe two different situations or elements.

A 4X4x8 is also called a potato

An 'L' Block is also called an 'L' corner but certainly shouldn't be confused with a shoe block...

These are all english words but if you're not a mason or working in the local region where these terms are most commonly used they might completely confuse another person who is not familiar with the lingo. Like a whole new language.

The next series of questions would have to do with why and are we hiding something?

Gary, we are already way off topic on this thread; I don't want to get it further off topic by discussing divorce here. If you want to discuss that, start another thread.

I have no problem with a man and a woman getting married.

I also have no problem with the words "civil union." In fact, as I stated above, I would prefer that the government give all couples civil unions, and leave marriages to religion.

My problem - as I have made clear - is with your reasoning behind why a heterosexual couple should be allowed to marry while a homosexual couple should have only a civil union. If you would like to debate this further we can do so in another thread. I stand by my reasoning that 'an intention to procreate' is not an adequate definition of marriage.

[October's Autumn]

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Apr 10 2008, 06:04 PM, said:

so let's talk about the divorce and the divorce rate and why people get divorced.

The reasons people get divorced are many. From my observation the divorce rate is too low. As long as I see people in unhealthy relationships who aren't willing to end the relationship I will take the stand the divorce rate is not too high, but too low.

I worked with teacher who was never going to get married. Then her parents got divorced. It wasn't until they acknowledged that their relationship was bad and they needed to end it did she realize that what they had was not what marriage was supposed to be. Last I knew she was engaged and getting married!

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

McKenna, on Apr 10 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

Gary, we are already way off topic on this thread; I don't want to get it further off topic by discussing divorce here. If you want to discuss that, start another thread.

I have no problem with a man and a woman getting married.

I also have no problem with the words "civil union." In fact, as I stated above, I would prefer that the government give all couples civil unions, and leave marriages to religion.

My problem - as I have made clear - is with your reasoning behind why a heterosexual couple should be allowed to marry while a homosexual couple should have only a civil union. If you would like to debate this further we can do so in another thread. I stand by my reasoning that 'an intention to procreate' is not an adequate definition of marriage.

Hi McKenna,

Yes, I knew a discussion here on divorce was way off topic as also was I believe the discussion about gay rights, but it is a point of contention for some people and I've had trouble in the past with my position on this topic, but in all reality as we see below there is room for discussion on both issues just to clarify different points.

You have made very clear and uderstandable your position, yet I fail to see where the term civil union can't be equal in meaning to marriage to appease all parties those like me with my heterosexual understanding and those with a homosexual desire. I really think the meaning should be equal really you can have a homosexual wedding with a civil union while the only thing different is the title on the documentation. As I said about this issue I had no idea that my marriage was only a civil union and that is depressing to me but something that I have to live with as part of my history as my parents before me and my fathers before him. It is sad when the wife doesn't come to the marriage with everything and withholds portions with lies and help from outside of what would have been a marriage that was destroyed by those external influences, selfishness and the lack of truth. (That might be harsh, vague or cryptic and really all I'm going to say about that, I don't think it would be appropriate to go into the details, I've already written enough, I'm sure... I hope not too much but enough to bring a little clarity to why I have this point of view...)

October, on Apr 11 2008, 10:26 AM, said:

The reasons people get divorced are many. From my observation the divorce rate is too low. As long as I see people in unhealthy relationships who aren't willing to end the relationship I will take the stand the divorce rate is not too high, but too low.

I worked with teacher who was never going to get married. Then her parents got divorced. It wasn't until they acknowledged that their relationship was bad and they needed to end it did she realize that what they had was not what marriage was supposed to be. Last I knew she was engaged and getting married!

That is Rich October's Autumn, it is sad that the parents of your co-worker were in a toxic relationship, the real neat thing would have been to resolve that issue and give the parents a new lease on love, unfortunately in my situation as many times as I've tried to be good, it seems that outside influences continually led my wife to believe that I was bad, I could have been perfect and it wouldn't have been good enough as exampled so many times and the so many times that I was disrespected. So how do we cure the divorce rate that is not only to low but also too, way to high... Doesn't that read like an oxymoron? How can anything that is too low be too high? Divorce is probably the only appropriate answer and technically divorce should be extinct. We could do much better as a society in helping couples instead of hurting couples.

The problem is that we don't have enough people working for the good of others, or at least that is how I see it.

Do you think this would be a good topic for discussion? I'm not really sure about starting too many threads... That would be a couple of topics that I've suggested with cold feet...

[October's Autumn]

I don't know if there is really an issue about starting more threads. I will say with my own experience with having gone through a divorce that we spent 5 years in marital therapy. At the point I finally said "enough is enough" there was too much damage done to be fixed. I could no longer trust him. After I left I all but stopped having panic attacks and the 10 year battle with anorexia came to a halt. My very life had been at risk because of the toxicity of our relationship, I wasn't being beat physically but emotionally. It seems so obvious now but to this day my family (parents, siblings) have problems understanding how sick I was in the relationship -- I don't think they truly understand how close they came to losing me, forever. I suspect they are in denial perhaps out of guilt for not being able to see what was happening, of course I was in denial myself and was a master at hiding my own misery, partially because I blamed myself for what was happening and partially because I didn't want to get a divorce. It was "easier" to be wholly miserable than to be willing to say the relationship needed to end. Eventually something clicked and I escaped. I'm still not sure what exactly happened but I think it was probably my last chance to get out -- perhaps that basic survival instinct that is in us all? I believe that had I not left when I did I would have been dead at my own hand.