I agree with ......................

I agree with whoever said,

"So let me get this straight- Larry King is gettin' his 8th divorce...Elizabeth Taylor might be gettin' married for the 9th time...Jesse James & Tiger Woods are screwin anything that comes along...yet the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage, REALLY???????"

Ziggy,

I agree that not only our culture's acceptance of adultery but also it's acceptance of "no-fault divorce" make a mockery of the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing. The churches were largely silent on the divorce rate within them (those outside the church should do as they wish, but the moral behavior of those within the church are absolutely up for scrutiny), so just now caring about marriage is altogether lame.

I wouldn't call suddenly caring lame SB, I'd call it hypocritical.

There is no difference between Larry King, Liz Taylor, Jessie James, Tiger Woods, and Ellen Degenerse or Barney Frank. They are they product of an anything goes, don't offend me, relativistic society. They are the examples of the humanistic moral system where there is no standard of behavior.

Now before you and Terry go jumping on me, all the laws on the face of the earth ain't going to change this and I am not avocating making more laws. In fact if I had my way, about 95% of all the laws on the books would be gone. The change has to come from inside man himself. Mankind has to decide all the guff they been fed by the left and humanists is trash solely to be rejected. He has to accept that a standard of behavior exists and choose for himself to follow that standard

Cato wrote:The change has to come from inside man himself. Mankind has to decide all the guff they been fed by the left and humanists is trash solely to be rejected. He has to accept that a standard of behavior exists and choose for himself to follow that standard

But no one such "standard" exists. There are many "standards", and many sets of consequences for either following or not following any one standard

In a society of personal freedoms, deciding which "standard" one will follow and which set of consequences one is willing to accept is a personal choice.

Homosexuality and adultery have been with mankind since the beginning of recorded history- and likely long before that. Those natural biological attractions are not going to go away by simply "accepting" someone or other's prescribed "standard".

Ziggy,

Therein lies the difference you have with me, and Cato as well. I do not accept that man can make his own standard. Right and wrong are simply beyond our own particular preferences.

Let me ask you this, Ziggy, do you think that if a man accepts adultery but his wife does not, he should do as he pleases provided she does not find out?

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

I agree that not only our culture's acceptance of adultery but also it's acceptance of "no-fault divorce" make a mockery of the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing.

Now Michael, saying "our culture" as being all inclusive with the "sanctity of marriage" is not exactly right. But now saying "our fundamentialist Christian believing culture" would be more close to being right.

Our culture had greater acceptance of adultery and prostitution up through the early to mid 1900's than it does now days. The homos were basically ignored unless they were "high profile" people.

And thus, "no-fault divorces" were unnecessary because the females were not suing for a divorce "at the drop of a hat".