Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The offspring of those in the boats saw the large number of boats that have either sank or are sinking in the lake and wonder if they even want to give the lake a shot at all.  As a matter of fact, fewer of them are making the lake their home every year.
To make matters worse, some people wanted to get on the lake without boats!  A few people would try to navigate the lake by driving their cars down the boat ramps and onto the lake.  As you might imagine, the results were disastrous!  The cars would sink, taking with them all of the passengers including children in the backseats.  Many of the people in the ships were distraught over the cars in the lake.  Those people tried to help those in the cars, which placed more strain on their own ships.  The children on the bank became confused about what equipment was required to enjoy the lake.  Some began to enter the lake on motorcycles, scooters, and even rollerblades!
Some people, who wanted to help all involved, asked the government to issue a decree stating that only boats could go on the lake, but others called this closed minded and intolerant.  Because of the chaos and increasing number of sinking ships, more and more people avoided the lake all together.  The boat story is analogous to the problems with marriage.  The lake represents the institution of marriage.  The boats represent the relationship of a husband and a wife.  The rocks represent all of the temptations and lies Satan throws at husbands and wives that will shipwreck their relationship if they aren’t careful.  The government buoys are repealed divorce laws that used to force married couples to slow down and more seriously consider the dangers of divorce.  Those attempting to use cars for what they were not made for are those in homosexual relationships seeking homosexual “marriages”.
Public policy efforts address the problems government can create or exacerbate for the institution of marriage.  These efforts are necessary, but take a long time to accomplish and can’t solve the problem of marital dissatisfaction, which leads to divorce.  We must walk and chew gum at the same time.  We must let our legislators know that the issues of protecting marriage from redefinition and divorce reform are important.  We must also work on our own marriages and help those around us work on theirs.
The “Love Dare" is one way to help couples enjoy that beautiful blue lake we call marriage.  It comes out of the “Fireproof” movie.   Check out the video below and pick up a Love Dare book for yourself and apply it to your relationship with your spouse.  A large dose of unconditional love is often what marriages need most.  Perhaps one marriage at a time we can turn sinking, rundown boats into the yachts they were created to be and influence the next generation in the process. 

Comments: (17)



Concentrate on your own boat, Ryan, for you don't understand ours.

If you really want to torture this analogy, it would be say that you have misidentified our Yellow Submarine for a car, and you are in a panic that we are sinking while we are simply progressing across the lake happily in our own manner, as we are entitled to do as free Americans, so long as we don't run into your boat.

You, on the hand, are creating a disaster, by setting sail in your confusion to rescue us, and creating disharmony for yourself and for us. Rather than attend to your boat, which is in miserable shape, you are focused on ours, which will get us across the lake as happily as we would wish it.

Or, to use another analogy, you seek to remove a speck from our eyes when you have a log in yours.

Thanks Chris...I will concentrate on my own boat and I hope others do the same...that was the main point of the post.

I'm not trying to remove the log from your eye, Chris. Only those we love and trust most in the world usually have a fighting chance at helping us see the sins that hold us captive. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm just refusing to stand by and allow you to insert your log into my State's laws.

If you were truly as concerned about the preservation of traditional marriage you would at least revise the first sentence of current SJR-15 offering to say:

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman until the death of one, or according to standards in force in Judea immediately prior to 33 A.D., cause for divorce, and only for such cause."

Not a religious reference at all, and the standards are clearly ascertainable. If a constitutional amedment is necessary and proper to preserve traditional values in one area, what are you waiting for?

Hmm.. wait, what is that I see across the lake? Why, it's Ryan, walking on water. Wait, no.. not Ryan. Is it Curt (Smith)? Maybe Micah (Clark) -- good biblical name. Could it be Saint Eric (Miller)? Oops, that one's on his second or third boat I think.

Hey Ryan, once you all get the metaphors figured out, maybe THEN you should introduce laws to reinstate the buoys. Since that seems to be the point where all of this went awry.

In the mean time, I'm going to hope some day for one of Chris' submarines.

Ryan, if we were to attempt to amend the constitution to say that marriage is only between one man and one man or one woman and one woman, THAT would be our attempting to impose our own view of happiness on others to whom our view clearly should not apply. It is YOU who are attempting to invalidate the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection of the laws and religious freedom for all citizens, not we.

By the way, following along the boat analogy, having raced sailboats as a youngster, I recall the greatest success (which, for a Hoosier sailing in Rhode Island, was sweet indeed) came as a result of my concentrating on my own boat and its adjustments to the winds and waves, and on no one else's. I recall distinctly consistently winning races by setting my own sails to my own observations of the wind, rather than following the rest of the fleet of Sunfish.

Further, to extend the analogy, I come from a family that knows how to sail well.. a loving family without divorce or strife or estrangement. You don't need to tell us how to sail... we know.

Chris Douglas:

You should step up and offer a better apologetic for same sex marriage. If SSM is a good idea, what other marriage expansions are a good idea, and why?

Is this now the nature of our freedom as American citizens? That in order to exercise freedom of religion and in order to preserve the equal protection of the law to which we are as citizens entitled by the guarantees of the Constitution, we must first not only persuade others of the benefits of such freedom and protections to ourselves, but persuade others of the benefits of freedom and equal protection under all circumstances.

To invoke Abraham Lincoln:

"As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

You, Mr. Mann, how are you different from the Know Nothings? Just as you would appear to render meaningless freedom of religion and equal protection of the laws by making exercise contingent upon majority agreement, you might also propose a change in the legal system to render an assumption of guilty upon every accused until proven innocent.

You can disagree with same sex marriage all you wish. But you are completely out of place in refusing to back our equality of religious practices and our guarantees of equal protection under the laws. It is as if I took my substantial disagreements with, for instance Louis Farrakhan on the one hand or the Ku Klux Klan on the other and attempted to ban them from speaking or marching.

If you can't understand that, then as Lincoln suggested, why not move from this nation of freedom and equality under the law and find a genuine theocracy where you can impose all you wish upon the freedoms and equalities of your fellow citizens without appearing to be hypocrites?


I'm not moving anywhere. Back to the point: step up and offer a coherent explanation of what limitations on marriage you think are reasonable.

Beyond SSM, will you advocate for marriage between three men, five women, two men and a old boy? A man, a dog, and a (...?).

Just think beyond the contemporary issue of ssm, and tell us where your limits are, if any, and offer an apologetic on why that should be.

Look around you at the horrific examples of marriages even between two heterosexuals that should never have occurred. I wouldn't presume to judge. Infidelity is damaging too... but it's legal. Freedom is a messy thing, but it beats tyranny. Or are you the new Taliban?

Before acknowledging that it was none of your business, would you have insisted that an inter-racial couple explain where and why they would draw the line, when racists made the same "where will it end" arguments? Would you have compared (as many did)inter-racial marriage to inter-species marriage?

The trespass upon the rights and guarantees of gay citizens is blatantly and manifestly unjust. I'll let others argue for what justice or injustice applies to their cases. One thing is sure: I would not make it my life's work, my obsession, or my fixation, as authors of this amendment do, to impede the rights of another person for no reason other than my personal discomfort when that other person in no way harms any being in their pursuit of happiness and conditions of mutual consent prevail.

Does mutual consent obtain between man and beast or between adult woman and minor child? The law recognizes no such ability to consent in minors or beasts, and I'm in agreement with the law in that respect.

Does a polygamist harm others? I don't know. Make the argument for me. Is polygamy more damaging to society than serial marriage and divorce? I'm not sure it is... make the argument for me. Kenn Gividen thinks its none of our business, and I'm not sure he's wrong.

But these things are red herrings.. comparing my family to inter-species relationship is no less insulting than if I were to begin publicizing my opinion of your marriage with your wife when its none of my business. It demonstrates no respect for gay citizens, no serious intellectual engagement with respect to the welfare and just treatment of your fellow citizens, and reveals instead the deep prejudice against gays which informs the forces behind the movement to write us out of our Constitutional protections.

Your point is bogus. Your attack on the our religious freedoms and equal protections of the law is indefensible.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Are you an evolutionist?

Mr. Mann,

The evolution argument is old. Relationships are deeper than procreation, and for homosexuals, its insulting to them to that they would not understand that evolution is based upon furthering a species.

By your oncoming argument (if the answer is yes), heterosexuals that are married that cannot procreate, are also, unreasonable and unnatural and should divorce and the one with the issue, should never marry again.

You draw the line where consenting adults are able to enter into a loving relationship together by their choice. Anything beyond that should not is wrong. Forcing others into marriage is wrong (arranged marriages, forced polygamous marriages). Banning consenting adults from marriage or entering into a recognizable relationship due to a set of religious beliefs is also wrong.

By evolutionist, do you mean as one might be a chemist or tobbacanist? Do you mean am I a practitioner of evolution? a retailer of it? Evolutionist can mean dozens of things, describing people who may surely agree or disagree on any given matter with respect to our biology.

Do I tend to believe the theory that all life on earth came from slowly changing natural processes operating over billions of years? I do.

However, my views with respect to evolution are not relevant to my freedom of religion or my guarantee of equal protection of the laws. If two peaceful alien beings with the capability of mutual intelligent consent landed on this earth in a giant peach and set up housekeeping together, and if their doing so constituted no trespass upon the rights of others, if they bought property, kept their lawn mowed, their shelter in good repair, if they paid their taxes and contributed to our mutual defense, I can imagine no objection to extending to them the rights and obligations the rest of humanity enjoy through the institution of civil marriage. I would wish them well. How the rest of us came to be here is utterly immaterial.

By the way, if they produced offspring and insisted on teaching them alone and segregated off in their giant peach, I suppose I would believe they had a right to so. But I would find them suddenly highly objectionable if they emerged from their giant peach and with their offspring demanded that the law be such that all but they be denied its civil protections.

Chris, consulting your biography, I wonder whether you yourself haven't chosen for you and your offspring a life inside a giant peach, emerging only to demand that the laws protect your family alone.

(How's THAT for an analogy, Ryan?)

I think this about sums it up, from Congressman John Lewis, who stood next to Martin Luther King on so many occasions:

"I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry."

Chris Mann,

Chris Douglas doesn't want a conversation. He just wants to throw bombs. Good try though.

Despite all his overtures to freedom he doesn't want true freedom (even for himself and his partner )for those who could free themselves from homosexuality through good Christian counseling and the support of folks who would help them escape. Instead he embraces his spiritual prison and wants public policy to point others there as well...even folks who have had homosexual feelings forced upon them because of horrible sexual abuse as children. That's not freedom...that's slavery that should break our hearts.

This sort of freedom through forgiveness of sin vs. slavery in sin is represented throughout the scriptures, but Galations 5 is particularly helpful.

It starts:
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."


I'm really disappointed in where this post has gone. In fact, I'm disappointed in where most of the posts on VR go. If you look at the VR policy comment, just about every post has comments that violate it:

"Comments are welcome and encouraged, but they must be relevant to the topic and free from inappropriate material. This includes profanity, personal attacks, libel, or anything similar. Frequent material of this nature will result in comments from the guilty IP Address being blocked."

The personal attack issue gets carried too far by people commenting (public and VR). It is a shame it is not moderated better or upheld by even those who "endorse it."

Red leaning blue, I shall to try to police myself... But I struggle to resist observing, Ryan, that you couldn't throw more red herrings if you were employed by the Pike Place Fish Market. (Seattle. World Famous. Fish Throwers.)

All molestation is tragic, whether the victim is gay or straight, whether the perpetrator is male or female. I wouldn't discourage a victim from seeking solace wherever that victim might find it.... including their church.

I do, however, find highly problematic the suggestion that gays become gay as a result of molestation. Tain't so. At the very least, I can say that I came from a great family mercifully without such dysfunctionality. The evidence is overwhelming that there is a strong (though not necessarily definitive) biologic (though not necessarily genetic) predisposition toward sexual orientation, whether gay or straight. I classify it tragic also when a gay person finds him or herself struggling for the acceptance of an intolerant church that calls being gay a defect of character; that is a recipe for life-long unhappiness.

But finally, classifying as errant and banning all individual expression of free-will outside that defined by your specific religious perspective (narrow even within the greater realm of Christianity) is placing no value on the American value of freedom whatsoever.

In my opinion, it is not even an especially respectful treatment of the faculties God has provided us in allowing us the ability to reason and the exercise of free will. In this I suppose I suffered the fatal flaw of reading at an early age, and being influenced by, a quote of Jefferson:

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

or more lately, the opening stanzas of Alexander Pope's Universal Prayer:

"Father of all! In every age,
In every clime adored,
By saint, by savage, and by sage,
Jehovah, Jove, or Lord!

Thou Great First Cause, least understood
Who all my sense confined
To know but this, that Thou art good
And that myself am blind.

Yet gave me, in this dark estate,
To see the good from ill;
And, binding Nature fast in fate,
Left free the human will.

What conscience dictates to be done,
Or warns me not to do,
This teach me more than Hell to shun,
That more than Heaven pursue."


I think is funny how you started your post about throwing bombs then in your typical hypocritical fashion state,

"...even folks who have had homosexual feelings forced upon them because of horrible sexual abuse as children."

Allowing same sex marriage does not equate to promoting sexual molestation. Maybe you should get a job at Department of Child Services and work in a sexual abuse unit for awhile before you start spouting off stupidity. By your own statement, heterosexual marriages should not be allowed either due to the fact that heterosexual molestation. I don't know very many homosexuals that promote molestation. In fact, many homosexual work in fields protecting children.

And by your post, you again just show that your are a Christian promoting you belief that everyone should live by a Christian principle of heterosexual marriage. Democracy by mob rule, right?