Cal

Is this a real scenario that you know of or a hypothetical one? This seems sort of financially irresponsible of the couple. Unless the church actually promised them support or required a financial statement from them before they issued the call and then issued it anyway. Absolutely. I know that exact situation. And it is about to happen to another couple I know.

I don't know a maid who works for less than $15.00/hr. The average maid service here is $20.00/hr. That would make their contributions closer to equal. Also, you need to combine their financial contributions and subtract the cost of supporting both of them. In my case, my husband is a much bigger spender than I am. Still comes up short. And why the cost of supporting him--HE is supporting him. And what financial contribution has she made, other than what I have said. Most of the time, nothing--unless she works outside the home, and that is NOT what we are talking about--we are talking about a stay at home mom, remember. :) And, judging by the disparity in financial contribution, your husband SHOULD be a bigger spender than you are. ( I don't know your situation so I can't comment, nor would I be so rude as to presume to know your situation) Even if the disparity is lesser in some cases, it is also much greater in others. What if the guy makes say 2 or 3 hundred thousand? Should he still clean toilets? How much does he have to make to get out of cleaning toilets? And if she doesn't contribute as much as he does, why shouldn't she do it instead of him?

Hasn't it always been so? I don't think so. The mission presidents of my peers mostly include professional educators or church employees. How about this one: The church calls an elderly couple on a mission, which they have to pay for out of their pension and savings. They go on two or three of these missions, and by the time they are 80, have virtually nothing left in the savings, as it was used up on the missions. Now they are both incapacitated, and instead of being able to use their savings to get along, their 3 kids, who have very large families and don't make that much money themselves (after deducting 10% every month) are left with the cost of supporting them in a rest home. They ask the church to help support them, but the church says the family must do it. Maybe now I see why they pick rich execs!

The last line is funny, and the rest is wishful thinking! I'll be damned if I am going to work my bum of to support some lazy stay at home mom, just to hear her nag me about the dishes and the floor, and complain that I don't pay her enough attention. Men who make good money don't have to put up with that---your requests are an invitation to get yourself "kicked to the curb, honey!". Disclaimer: Nothing in the aformentioned statement is to be construed to encourge infidelity or abuse. Let it be known that this author totally and fully supports a loving and mutually respectful marriage. Let it also be known that cleaning the toilets for a fat, lazy, stay at home mom, after the guy busts his bum at work all day, is against public policy and should be against the law! I guess you don't pay attention to the studies that show that a SAHM does the work of 2 full-time workers. So, you need to buck up and face the facts. A SAHM works a heck of a lot harder than any man, unless, of course, he has two full-time jobs. And most husbands don't pay their wives to do the work they do. They are stingy with their money, making the "non-working" wife have to beg for it. That is a patent, on its face, falsehood. You aren't doing your economic math, honey! Here are the facts: Lets say that the guy makes $100,000 a year plus the value of his work in the yard, say 4 hrs per week. Your SAHM works 12 hrs per day doing domestic work and day care. (lets say 2 kids) Cost of her 12 hrs domestic chores @ 10.00 per hour = 120.00 per day X 6 days (she takes one day off to spend nagging her husband) X 52 weeks per year = $37,440. Value of the day care: (since she has to contribute 1/2 by virtue of being one of the parents we divide her contribution in half) So, 1 kid X 8 hours( he's home spending time with the kids, so she doesn't really have them 24 hours) X say $12.00 per hour X 5 days per week X 50 weeks per year ( they go to disneyland for 2 weeks a year) = $24,000 per year TOTAL VALUE OF HER WORK = $37,400 PLUS $24,000 = $61,400 per year. Now, subtract the cost to feed, cloth and take care of HER. Well, if she paid rent, that would be, say, $1,000 a month ($1500 in California) which is $12,000 per year. PLus food, clothing and 10 trips to target per week, another say, $10,000. TOTAL COST OF SUPPORTING HER = $22,000 per year. HER TOTAL CONTRIBUTION: VALUE OF HER WORK MINUS COST TO SUPPORT HER = $61,400 MINUS $22,000 = $39,400 So--------she is short by $60,600 Under this scenario, which is pretty reasonable for a guy with a good job, and the SAHM, he is making close to 2/3 the economic contribution. aND I DIDN'T EVEN INCLUDE THE VALUE OF HIS YARDWORK WHY SHOULD HE COME HOME AND CLEAN TOILETS TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

You've partially redeemed yourself with some of your later comments, but this one is just plain wrong. I'd rather be alone supporting myself than with some man who doesn't care what he looks like and has let himself go. I know that not all men are of the body type to look like body builders, just as not all women have the body build to be Playboy bunnies, or SI swimsuit models, but some self-esteem and self-worth are important, and not just for looks. Ok, Jenda, I can respect that you want the guy to keep himself up. That is not my point. Listen up, babe! :) My point was that, generally, it means more to men, than it does to women. You see LOTS of good looking women with old fat bald guys--who just happen to be LOADED. When was the last time you saw a short, fat, ugly girl with a good looking rich guy! Never, that's when. Another example" Have you ever noticed the wives and girl friends of professional athletes (who as a group make good money)--most the time they are slim and very good looking women. Sure there are exceptions--but exception they are. You don't see them with over weight homely girls. Why is this? Rich successful guys can pick what they want--and look what they chose! Sure the girls are probably nice inside also, but that doesn't change what I have said. Again--it is just a generality that proves my point. Men care more about looks, women care more about money. There are lots of exceptions, and I'm not saying that it is the way it should be, or that men don't look for MORE than looks--it is just a HIGHER priority to them than to women. Why do you find that so hard to accept? Why is that so difficult? Is it hurtful to hear? Not meant to be. No more hurtful to women, than the fact that an average looking guy with no money and no evidence that he is going to make any is going to get a really hot looking girl who knows what she's got going for herself. I don't hear the guys on this thread complaining about how hurtful or ridiculous that is--why? Because guys know it is the truth--why do you think we bust our butts to get an education and make some money---One is to have the peace of mind to be able to survive, and second is to be able to attract good looking women, who also happen to have some brains and a nice personality. The more you bring to the table, the better your bargaining position--it generally works that way in life. Again, it is not that looks isn't important to women, it is just not AS important to them as it is to men.

The last line is funny, and the rest is wishful thinking! I'll be damned if I am going to work my bum of to support some lazy stay at home mom, just to hear her nag me about the dishes and the floor, and complain that I don't pay her enough attention. Men who make good money don't have to put up with that---your requests are an invitation to get yourself "kicked to the curb, honey!".Disclaimer: Nothing in the aformentioned statement is to be construed to encourge infidelity or abuse. Let it be known that this author totally and fully supports a loving and mutually respectful marriage. Let it also be known that cleaning the toilets for a fat, lazy, stay at home mom, after the guy busts his bum at work all day, is against public policy and should be against the law!

I'm glad that you finally "get" where I am coming from. :) As to the response regarding the general rule about what attracts men and women--Many women respond the way those on this thread do---it makes them feel insecure to hear that men are so impressed by looks--most women are very insecure about their looks, and to have a man point out this fact of life, infortunately elicits a knee-jerk reaction to it. That doesn't keep it from being the cold hard truth. I don't bring it up to hurt anyone's feelings; I bring it up because the better women understand men, the better they can make good life decisions when it comes to men. As you noticed, I never said 1) that men SHOULD be so attracted by looks nor 2) did I say that it is the ONLY thing they are attracted to. But women need to understand that if they don't keep themselves up, men are more likely than say, a woman is, to stray--at least mentally. It is just nature---sometimes an ugly truth, but truth, nevertheless. (at least to women, who would prefer that men look at them only for the inside--but that will never be--they will appreciate the inside, yes, but women cannot assume that they can let the outside go without serious side effects.) Yes, ladies, men shouldn't let themselves go either, but as long as the guy is warm and fuzzy, and brings home the bacon, you aren't really going to care very much. Admit it! :)

It looks better, you use google's search feature to find things. It's fast. It keeps spam out very good. And it has TONS of space. You don't delete thing, you archive them. It's really cool. I have tons of invites too, if anyone wants to try it out. It won't be public for a while. Jeff--I would like to try it, can you send me one?

You and I disagree. First I am concerned that you think marriage is a right owed to who ever wants it. Your notion that marriage is nothing but a default relationship that society is obligated to make available regardless of consequences at the whim of whoever ask appears foolish to me. As I have posted marriage ought to be a protected privilege, granted by society in select circumstances (a man and a woman) in order to guarantee families that will provide a next stable generation so society does not vanish. The attitude that mankind should be able to do anything they wish until it is proven dangerous is itself reckless. The entire history of mankind is full of such foolish notion. Let us introduce rabbits in Australia, or kudzu in America, lets clear cut rain forest, or overbuild on a watershed hillside. In all such cases when it was proven to be a disaster it was already to late. logic point #1. Before making a change (even minor) to any complex system we ought to be reasonably certain that the change is beneficial. If the sponsors and believers of a change do not understand what is at stake enough to be able to demonstrate that it is beneficial most likely it is NOT. logic point #2. When considering effects of change in a complex system it is logical to consider extreme possibilities. This is a scientific principle used to understand possibilities at thresholds should a major shift occur. For example if society refused to acknowledge and endorse homosexual relationships and as a result such relationships were unable to continue and completely vanished what effect would that have on society. Anything? If society did acknowledge and endorse homosexual relationships and as a result those relationships became the overwhelming relationship in that society, what effect would that have on society. Quite possibly that society could vanish completely. A foolish notion? Perhaps, but if this logic had been employed most man made environmental (and other) disasters would been avoided. logic point #3. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose from a moral stand point. The moral question all should ask is what would happen if everybody engaged in any activity? Let us take anger. If everybody escalated anger in society would society benefit? No. Let use take kindness. If everybody escalated kindness would society benefit? Yes. We can conclude that kindness is of great moral value and anger is of little moral value. Now let us take homosexual marriage. If everybody engaged in homosexual marriage and endorsed and supported it above every other relationship leaving families to fend for themselves without protection would society benefit? I don’t think so. How about nobody engaged in or endorse homosexual marriages leaving them to fend for themselves and instead supported only families that support children? Society would continue prosper without question for another generation. You do not have to destroy a forest in America in order to introduce kudzu, but once introduced and allowed unimpeded access to the forests of America the kudzu destroyed forest all by it’s self. It may not destroy all the forest but it will destroy enough to make a lasting difference. But we already have a condition in which marriage is broken. The greatest problems of poverty in this country is directly connected to society’s recent neglect of marriage. Your proposal will doubtfully contribute to any possible fix. If anyone wants a homosexual relationship I am willing to live and let live, up to the point that they demand by power of law that society back the homosexual relationship as much as the relationship upon which children must depend in order to survive. My support stops there. I cannot no will I pretend that society will be just fine without any effort to demonstrate society will be benefitted for the investment. And that lack of effort to answer questions coupled with blame and cries of homophobia indicates this is not the direction society should even consider. The Traveler The reasons you give for why gays should not marry are full of holes. You have yet to prove that a gay couple can't raise a stable secure individual. Second, there is no evidence that the percent of gay relationships are going to increase just because gays are afforded the same civil rights under Family Law that straights have. You call the idea foolish or reckless, but he only facts you can muster are references to rabbits in Australia? This is a completely inappropriate analogy. The two issues have virtually nothing in common. Tampering with environments in a biolgical sence is not relevant here. The only issue you raised was whether the human race can go on reproducing while allowing gays to marry. You little analogies of upsetting the balance of nature have nothing to do with this issue. It is a distractor to fill up space. You have introduced no evidence that allowing gays to marry will upset anything, where as there is plenty of evidence AHEAD OF TIME, that cutting the rainforests and introducing foreign species can disrupt established ecosystems--that people do it only reflects ignorance and greed, and a disrgard for KNOWLEDGE already acquired. There is no store of data that shows that if gays marry the world will fall apart. Your fear that gayness is going to overtake society if we allow gays to marry is simple paranoia without factual basis. It is a fear based on fear itself. There is no evidence that societies in the past that have been more tolerant of gays have suffered from any MORE reproductive or family problems than those that suppress gays. Gayness is not a social disease, it is a biological fact. As I pointed out, it exists in most mammalian groups studied, and these groups have been around, quite successfully for longer than we have. Your arguments are not scientific because you have started it based on a Conclusion. You already have your bias, and are simply trying to bolster it. But you are short on facts and long on speculation and opinion. Your "bolstering" is based on a supposition that has no foundation: You say WHAT IF everyone in society were gay? That is the error of logic known as "the slippery slope". There is NO evidence that is gays were more accepted and had more civil rights that society would deteriorate. NONE. There is no evidence that tolerance of gays would lead to any substancial increase of homosexuality. NONE. A small % of Chimpanzees engage in homosexual behavior, with no "laws" or "rules" against it--has the chimpanzee society suffered any ill effects. Have they all turned into gays? No, I'm sorry, but your aguments don't hold water, but simply reflect your bias. YOu will have to come up with something better.

Very simplistic view of the world. Too bad it doesn't comport with the actual scientific evidence on the subject.

Proves what? All it proves is that the GA has a vivid imagination. People hear and see all kinds of things that aren't there. There is plenty of documented evidence of people sensing things that don't really exist. We see what we expect to see and sense what we expect to sense. It doens't mean that it was a supernatural source--the human mind is capable of plenty of imaginations without resort to some "other world" explanation. Cada cabeza es un mundo.

Perfect response--totally predictable "woman" response. The problem is this: What Disrupt said about a man being able to trade up is qualifiedly true.The qualifyer us this: A guy can get as good looking a woman as his MONEY can afford. A woman can get as rich a guy as her LOOKS can attract. If the guy makes a lot of money, why should he put up with a stay at home woman that won't do anything for him; who won't make his breakfast, whines about his whiskers in the sink and turns into a big fat slob? Why? What's in it for him to stay with her when he can get a young, good looking one who will do all that stuff? Disclaimer: Do not interpret that statement as my ADVOCATING that men leave their woman when they start making more money. I'm just trying to articulate to you women what goes on in the mind of a man. Do you get it yet. Now guys--the same thing can happen to you. If you marry a really stunningly beautiful woman, who keeps herself up and who thought you had real potential for making money---watch out if later on you don't make all that much money, and YOU start doing what Winnie is complaining about (expecting stuff, being a slob etc) The only women that have to put up with their husband's being slobs are the ones that aren't good looking enough to get one that can take care of her any better. So guys, if you are not going to make good money, then be ready to make your own breakfast, and get sex when she is good and ready. Be prepared to be nagged about the things Winnie is complaining about if you are not going to make a big pile of money. I know women hate to hear that because they think that the whole world is this big romatic fantacy, and that her guy is going to fall all over her and worship her feet, "just because". Sorry girls, I like romance as much as the next guy, but not understanding the ground rules to begin with can ruin the romance real quick. So, women, stroke his eqo, make his breakfast and quit nagging, unless you are drop dead gorgeous. And guys, if you don't want a nagging slob tied around your neck forever, don't get married until you can afford someone else. Just a little practical advice---not recommending that anyone mistreat anyone--- married people should bend over backward to please eachother. But "should" is not always "IS".

You hit quite a few nails on the head--an bent a few sideways, but that's ok.

Right on--its about having a strong sense that you know who you are, what you want, are financially stable and have had enough dating and fun, that you are not going to feel caged in and deprived by being with one person for the rest of your life.It also means, if you are going to have children, that you can forget yourself and give to your child, while still being careful with the marriage relationship. A lot of the women on this thread hammered me for saying that men and women need to respect the roles that humans have evolved into over the millenia, and the biological imperatives that we come by genetically. Men want to be care takers, biologically. They are also attracted to women that look really good--it is biological--nature makes them attracted to a woman that looks like she is going to contribute superior genetics to his offspring. Of course humans have evolved complex ways of interacting, and chosing his mate JUST ON LOOKS can turn out to be a really bad decision. Nevertheless, that is what attracts men, at least initially, and it is what, to some degree keeps them interested, long term. Now, sometimes we confuse that for dominance and control. It's something we have to UNLEARN. Some guys never unlearn it, most of us take a while. Many of us start out expecting the girl to go along with everything we say and do. Some of us got wise before we got married and have an easier time of it. Others of us, get married too young, and we haven't learned anything about ourselves or women. That is why I say it is stupid to get married young. It is a great recipe for problems later on. Women want to be taken care of. That's also evolutionary. So they naturally look for a guy who can do that best. It is even more important than his looks. What she needs is to make sure the father of the kids will take care of her and the kids while she is vulnerable, and can not take care of herself (while having kids). To men, being taken careof is usually no priority. But a womans genetics for superior kids is. That is why men go for looks. It is the main indication of a woman's genetic superiority. But as they get older they start respecting themselves more and want the man to being such a "caretaker". The problem is, if a woman gets married too young, she has not yet developed that sense of independence and self reliance, and she permits the guy to take over, which he is naturally inclined to do. That is why a woman shouldn't get married before say, 25 either. She needs to have a strong sense of herself, and the only way she can have it is if she has education, financial stablitiy, the ability to support herself. If a man and woman both come into the marriage with some experience, education, self understanding and self esteem, then the marriage is much more likely to get off to a good start, and remain that way. So, again, I stand by my position that men and women need to understand the other's basic nature, especially if they got married young, because they are going to face some pretty scary changes as the woman finally starts getting some self esteem, and the man starts realizing he can't control her for ever. The problem is making those adjustments DURING marriage is a lot harder than waiting until you have some life experience--that is probably why the divorce rate is so high among people who marry before 25---it's just too hard for a lot of people to weather those changes. Again, there are exceptions to every rule. But this is definitely the rule.

Do you WANT to cause WWlll in her marriage? I'll tell you something yaanufs- when a friend of ours approached my hubby to ask him what the he** was going on, I got an answer: a one sided screamfest accusing me of trying to turn his friends against him, and to keep my nose out of his business. It took a lot for his friend not to punch him out, after he found what happened after the "man to man". All good intentions aside, I really don't think it would be a good idea for a total stranger to call him and ask about his marriage problems. I'm pretty sure that after he has gotten over the shock, he won't open up to you, and just take it all out on her. Disaster is what would happen. Jenda doesn't need that anguish.Jenda~ you are a strong woman...I know you have gone thru a lot over the last couple of years....and I am sorry that you are being treated the way you are...just remember that you are worth more than anything to a lot of people, and I hope that when your husband comes to his senses, he will realize what a prize he has in you. If it helps any.....start a list of things you love about your husband, you still seem to see the good things in him...don't lose focus of them. I have to agree with lindy on this--you said a lot of good stuff, but the suggestion about your interfereing needs some reconsideration. It would do way more harm than good.This girl needs PROFESSIONAL MARRIAGE AND PERSONAL COUNCELING.

Sounds worse than it is? What are you trying to do? Now are you playing games with us?It really sounds like you are turing inward on yourself and showing some real lack of self esteem. Buck up girl! You are worth more than that. Quit denying the truth of what you have just told us. Don't spill your guts and get us all worked up trying to help you, and then do an about face with "it sounds worse than it is". If if it wasn't as bad as it sounds, then why did you spill all that to us? It sounds like you have a real problem. It is called low self esteem. The typical response of a person with low self esteem to abuse is to justify the other person and to downplay the pain they feel--like they don't matter to themselves. This is not meant as a put down, just straight talk. Go to a councelor and find out who you are, get an identity so you can quit tolerating a miserable marriage.

Jenda--where did yanuff call you a liar? He seems to be honestly interested in listening to your problem. He just sees it from a man's point of view. That is something you are going to have to do if you are going to make any progress.Of course there is no excuse for the emotional abuse you seem to be enduring, but there is a lot of merit in what yanuff has said. But it has becomes very apparent to me just in reading the last few postings that your problem is way beyond your own expertise to solve. YOU NEED PROFESSIONAL COUNCELING. I'm going to keep telling you that until you go and get it!

It sounds like she has already done that and is reaping the rewards for it.Hint: he sounds like he has already gone down that route and has decided not to bother chasing anymore. I suspect you will find he will not chase again. DANGER, DANGER. This is a loaded question and will make a man think very carefully before answering. This type of question will not be answered in a meaningful way considering the current relationship problems you are facing. SUPER-DUPER DANGER ALERT. Do not ask this question. It is a sure fire way to get an anser that you don't want to hear and that your husband probably doesn't mean. I guarantee you that your husband will give a negative answer to this question. You are both so far down the route where you are playing controling games with each other that he will treat it as another one of your games. You need to begin communication, ther eis no doubt of this, but these questions will not help a male to open up. They are a long way down the road before you can expect any sensible answer to them. As a male you need to trust me on this. You will make the situation worse by going in with guns a blazin' asking these types of questions. Yeah, I have to agree with that. The guy obviously has a hard time communicating--don't rely on skills he doesn't have.You REALLY need a distinterested third party, a professional councelor to get you two communicating. I suspect nothing can unravel this but a really competent marriage councelor. Do it and do it now! Research the councelors in your area (don't just rely on some Bishop or priest--find the best one in the county--do your homework on this one--think of what is at stake.

I realize that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. That we have different kinds of needs that need taken care of. But when one is constantly giving in to the needs of the other, the relationship becomes one-sided. Both need to realize and meet each other's needs, but how do you stimulate the uninterested party? Totally withdraw and see what happens. If he withdraws more, rather than persues or complains, then you know there is somewhere else he is getting what he needs. If, OTOH, he complains or persues you, you know he is interested and that is the time to talk about what is going on with you both. Tell him how you want the marriage to go, how you feel about things he is doing and ask him what he wants from the marriage and what he thinks can make it better. Start with some kind of real verbal communications, rather than you going to the computer and he only setting places for himself and his daughter. Also ask him what the word 'family' means to him. Does it mean father and daughter? Or does it mean mom, dad, and child? In that order! I'm glad to see Amillia and me agreeing on something. You have to make yourself unavailable at some level. You have to play a "game". Now,"game" is just a word, the word is not the "thing". The "thing" is that humans are prone to take eachother for granted and to act out prior relationship conditioning. He probably did see an example of controling behavior. At least, something made him that way. Maybe you will never know, but people can change. Especially if they feel like they could loose something they love, take for granted, but still love. Some people don't know HOW to treat the other person. YOu have to teach them, but first you have to get their attention. The only way to do it sometimes is to make yourself less avaiable. Before you take any of our advise though: Talk this over with a professional councelor if you can find a good one--make sure they really good though--there are a lot of incompetents out there.

I can't help you. I don't know enough about your situation. I certainly don't know the view of your husband so I can't really comment with any degree of authority. I suspect there is lot more going on in your relationship than you are comfortable posting on a web site, understandably. I suspect there has been many discussion between you and yur husband where he has felt dismissed by his wife. I suspect the issue of sex has been discussed in your relationship and you have felt he has too many needs that are unreasonable for you to fulfill. Again I wouldn't expect you to post all that information but without knowing you or your husband I cannot suggest ways to stimulate the uninterested party. I can tell you one thing though. A male would happily walk over hot coals for a woman he loved, he would give his own life for the woman he loved, he would do anything. If he truely felt he loved you and he truely felt you loved him then he would do anything for you. Is the problem he doesn't love you or is the problem you don't love him unconditionally and he knows it? You might not think that is fair but it doesn't take much for a fragile male ego to be bruised and to feel unloved by his wife. We are simple creatures and it doesn't take much to make us happy, but it also doesn't take much to make us feel unloved in a relationship. yaanufs, believe me, sex is not a problem in our marriage. When nothing else is going right, we can always bank on the sex. B) He may feel dismissed by me, but it is only because he has long since dismissed me. My thought is that he has not learned how to multiply his love. He loved me more than I can say when we got married, and as soon as our daughter was born, I felt he had to choose who he was going to love, and so he chose her. Instead of multiplying the love, he just transferred it. Jenda--what I hear is that he is taking you for granted. Maybe he can't help himself. As yanuff said, we don't know him, we don't have a way to get into his head,and we don't know the situation. But, obviously, you don't feel he values you the way you want to be made to feel valued. Obviously, he doesn't feel he could lose you. Or if he does, then he doesn't care. Will he go to counceling with you (I don't recall if you said anything about this). If he won't go to counceling, and you are really that unhappy in your marriage, find some legitimate things to do OUTSIDE the home. Leave him home and go to the gym, start doing things that show you value yourself. You can't value someone that doesn't value themselves. Find some friends outside the home (females) and go to the show with them, or go bowling with them. Make him miss you a little bit. Don't do it with an attitude that says, "I'll show you". Just be quietly confident about it and show him that if he doesn't want to spend his time with you, or to treat you right, then you are going to make some friends elsewhere. If that doesn't work, then decide whether you want to live like this forever. If not, get out if you really can't stand it.

A happy bachelorette? What is wrong with being happy? Are you saying you're not happy now? Actually, getting married before you are 25 is almost always a bad decision. People are not ready for marriage that young. Yes, you may have to live with it, but as you said, you traded that for happiness.

Do you feel better now? Do you feel vented? Great, now maybe I can ask why you didn't read anything I said.Did I advocate not being faithful to your spouse? Did I suggest that people cheat on eachother? You completely misread and misinterpreted what I said. Go back and read it again, I don't feel like repeating myself.

Yeah, right Absolutely. The problem with you Cal, is that you are a manipulator and your wife doesn't want to be manipulated. Maybe your wife is a manipulator also. Too bad. Because if you both were just straight forward and loving and giving, it wouldn't be so bad for you. Dr. Phil once said something worth while. He said: One thing I do is make sure that when my wife walks into a room full of women, that she knows without a doubt she is the best treated women in the room. (Or something like that) What women and men have to do, is make sure they are doing the best to make their spouses the best treated in the room. Forget the games, the manipulation, the control. Because all these do is destroy the potential happiness and fulfillment you can receive in a relationship. I read a book once that said if you identify the game someone is playing while they are playing it, the can't play it any more because the whole purpose and success of the game is it's not being known. Once it is exposed, it just can't be played anymore. Try identifying the games you and your wife are playing and get REAL!!! What games? You sure do assume a lot. My wife and I understand eachother perfectly and I treat her just great. You just seem to think that because I understand how women are, that I must mistreat them. To the contrary.

Your argument assumes the truth which it questions. The existance of God.Put another way, if there is a God that can chose to abandon you, they who are you to complain about the abandonment? He's God, he is justified in what ever He does. If you think God has abandoned you, join the crowd---especially in South East Asia!

Unfortunately my friend your assumption that gays are only interested in other gays is not true. You may argue that my personal experiences in the military are not scientific and not to your liking but since I looked 13 I experienced the predatory behavior of every single gay I encountered. I have also not encounter any effort by the gay movement to halt and outlaw gay intrusions on those that do not appreciate it. That aside, I see no reason to support and encourage gay marriages. I have not even encountered any effort to demonstrate that gay marriage will benefit and is necessary for society. I believe society has an obligation to support and encourage marriage between a man and a woman because families and children are necessary and benefit society. Now, before you attempt to use an argument that has no real benefit I would point out that murder can occur without destroying society – plus, despite the fact that murder occurs, the population seems to grow anyway. The very idea that no one should concern themselves with murder because there are enough that do not murder that society can continue is not an argument that demonstrates murder should not be opposed. So please do not use a stupid argument for homosexuality. You may say that there is a big difference between murder and homosexual relationships but that would not be completely true in that both exist in all human society of any size and both have always existed in human society yet society has not been destroyed. So, what I am saying is that the fact that they can exist in society is not evidence that either “ought” to exist in society or that society has an obligation to support and encourage. Society has an obligation to support and encourage marriages between a man and a woman in order to guarantee a next generation. As I stated before this attitude is necessary for survival of the fittest and is very much a part of “natural” selection. Hand waiving and making rash innuendo is not scientific. We began this discussion with you accusing me of not being logical or scientific. My point is that it is neither logical nor scientific to alter or force change when it is not necessary, will not benefit and could be detrimental. The part of the previous statement that needs to be proven prior to change is the necessary and beneficial. The part about things that could be detrimental is not under the same obligation of demonstration – in fact, I believe that in the absence of necessary and beneficial, we must assume detrimental rather than be under the obligation to prove it. Yet for some odd reason whenever I suggest such a thing, people like yourself, say I am not logical or scientific. Sorry but I don’t buy the rhetoric or the smoke and mirrors - even it it has become the more popular in certain semi-intellectual circles at many of our universities. The Traveler Ah.....gay marriage is not for the purpose of benefiting society, it is for the purpose of benefiting gays! A just because a few gay guys hit on you in the military is hardly reason to make laws designed to discriminate against them. Besides, now you know how some women probably feel when they get hit on by you (Ok, that was a low blow--couldn't help myself--I apologize ahead of time! ). So ,you still haven't made a factual case as to why gays shouldn't AT THE VERY LEAST be allowed the same civil rights to union as hetero's. By the way, I'm simple defending a minority groups civil rights. Just remember, Mormons were a discriminated minority group once---what if the majority all of a sudden decided that Mormons should not be allowed to marry? By your logic, that could happen. If the majority can discriminate against one minority group, it can do so against any. Social norms have a way of waving like the flag in the wind. The beauty of a Bill of Rights is that the ability of the "prevailing wind" of majority opinion to determine which group gets discriminated against is limited. None of the arguments against gay unions that I have heard hold any water. They all come down to----vague generalities like "it's not natural", "it's not traditional" or even worse " it will lead to the extinction of the race" or "I just don't like it, so it should be against the law". These psuedo-justifications simply express personal preference rather than an argument on facts. The fact is that many societies have tolerated several variations on traditional marriage---mormons included.