NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that for the sake of consistency, the religious traditionalists should be pushing for a ban on divorce. Divorce obviously is much more destructive to marriage than gays ever could be. Also, Jesus speaks much more strongly against it than he speaks against gay marriage.

I think that for the sake of consistency, the religious traditionalists should be pushing for a ban on divorce. Divorce obviously is much more destructive to marriage than gays ever could be. Also, Jesus speaks much more strongly against it than he speaks against gay marriage.
I think they have in the past, but they eventually just decided to give up on it. *Shrugs*

I think that for the sake of consistency, the religious traditionalists should be pushing for a ban on divorce. Divorce obviously is much more destructive to marriage than gays ever could be. Also, Jesus speaks much more strongly against it than he speaks against gay marriage.

I think for the sake of not annoying me any more, they should go f*** themselves. I do, however, recognize that this is not immediately constructive to debate, so I shall add that they are deliberately moderating (corrupting) their stance to get more votes.

Because it's okay to bash gays and restrict gay people's rights. Doing so to straight people, well, pisses off straight people.

what fass said

plus i think they talk about it now and then. there WAS a "covenant marriage" law passed in louisiana that meant that if you opted for it, divorce was more difficult to get.

what *I* dont understand is why conservative protestants dont ban divorce in there own churches like the catholic church does. jesus spoke very specifically against divorce.

what *I* dont understand is why conservative protestants dont ban divorce in there own churches like the catholic church does. jesus spoke very specifically against divorce.
King Henry VIII...

King Henry VIII...
good point except most protestants owe more to martin luther or john calvin than to king henry8.

liberal christians i have no problem understanding. they allow gay marriage, abortion to some extent, divorce, women ministers, etc. but the conservatives make such a fuss over following the bible literally.

I'd like to be civil about this but the simple answer is because they are morons that only care about themselves.

I think the anti-gay people don't push to ban divorse(can't spel today) because some of they're numbers are divorsed. They would dwindle in numbers, and that is always bad

I'm actually further to the left than my nation is

Economic: -7.75
Social: -7.59

It's called the "double-standard". It also applies when insecure men bash gay people but have no problems with lesbians...

...Idiots...

Canada is one step ahead.
With the vote on gay marriage coming near, we're now debating gay divorce. :D

Funny eh?

Actually, I could make a good case history for this. I see, however, that a number of you have already made up your minds. So I'll not bother you.

I understand that some of the legal gay marrages have already ended in divorce...

I honestly do not know. I do like the idea of covenant marriage and it would help make marriage better by making it more stable and making divorces more difficult to secure. Frankly I would like to see the covenant marriage option available and promoted across the U.S.

What exactly is "covenant" marriage? I've never heard of this before.

Covenant marriage is a type of marriage that exists in only a few select states. It is an effort to make marriage more respectable.

In a covenant marriage couple legally agrees to seek marital counseling if problems develop during the marriage and the couple can only seek a divorce or legal separation for limited reasons. In order to enter into a Covenant Marriage, the couple must sign a recitation that provides:

* A marriage is an agreement to live together as husband and wife forever;
* The parties have chosen each other carefully and disclosed to each other "everything
which could adversely affect" the decision to marry;
* The parties have received premarital counseling;
* A commitment that if the parties experience marital difficulties they commit to take
all reasonable efforts to preserve their marriage, including marital counseling; and
* The couple must also obtain premarital counseling from a priest, minister, rabbi or
similar clergyperson of any religious sect or a marriage counselor.

In order to obtain a legal separation (which is not a divorce and therefore does not end the marriage), a spouse to a Covenant Marriage must first obtain counseling and then must prove:

* Adultery by the other spouse;
* Commission of a felony by the other spouse and a sentence of imprisonment
at hard labor or death:
* Abandonment by the other spouse for one year;
* Physical or sexual abuse of the spouse or of a child of either spouse;
* The spouses have lived separate and apart for two years; or
* Habitual intemperance (for example, alcohol or drug abuse), cruel treatment,
or severe ill treatment by the other spouse.

Okay, too many topics here.

Divorced Christian here. Divorced against my will, no fault state, no reason other than you want one, you get one. I'm the man, but I got the kids because I was always the primary care giver, I was against the whole thing, but I signed the papers and never got a lawyer of my own. I think the state, the government needs to end no fault divorces, especially in the cases that involve children.

Religious divorces... It's not fair to say protestant do allow it and Catholics don't, I myself know people that have been married in a catholic church, had children and then had an annulment and another catholic wedding and children AND AGAIN get an annulment... So don't tell me they don't have divorces, they just call it something else. At least they do make you work for it though.

On the other hand, the protestant churches do NOT support divorce, they tolerant it. They forgive.

No fault divorce was not a Christian idea, it was a secular idea. And, perhaps, it was too hard before. But now, we've gone too far and made it too easy.

As to the gay wedding divorces. Some of that is done on purpose, with an agenda, a plan. What the plan is, is simple. Have your wedding where it is intentionally orchestrated then move and have the newly-weds apply for a divorce in another state, a state that does not support same sex marriages. By so doing, you backwards engineer legality via the courts and federal inter-state commerce and marriage laws, no state can not recognize another states wedding license, thus, they then 'have' to legislate the divorce and the court will declare that same sex marriage HAVE to be legal so that they can divorce them... It's the conspiracy plan in action. Call me an idiot or a crazy all you want, it won't make it any less true that there are fanatics in the world that would get married just so they can divorce and bring a court case in another state.

IMO, the other states do have a right to fight back, and if the GLBT movement isn't careful, those that don't like being pushed around are going to get a strong enough movement to pass a national amendment. And if that happens, all state marriages recognizing same sex marriage will be called unconstitutional by the supreme court, end of story.

The GLBT groups should push more gently if they want to win, they are burning too many bridges too fast, IMHO.

Actually, many divorces happen because of the intrusion of a third person. This is actually the only type of divorce accepted by Jesus.

I think that for the sake of consistency, the religious traditionalists should be pushing for a ban on divorce. Divorce obviously is much more destructive to marriage than gays ever could be. Also, Jesus speaks much more strongly against it than he speaks against gay marriage.
Shhhhhh! Holy shit! Don't get them onto some new campaign! Lord knows they have enough fingers in everyone else's pies just now ( pun intended! ). :D

I'm actually tempted to say that religion is more disruptive to marriage than either gays or divorces.

Anyone happen to know where in the Bible Jesus speaks against homosexuality? I can never seem to find any such passages.

I'm all for restricting divorce, it's just nearly impossible to legislate it, given the libertine temperament of this country these days.

I think that for the sake of consistency, the religious traditionalists should be pushing for a ban on divorce. Divorce obviously is much more destructive to marriage than gays ever could be. Also, Jesus speaks much more strongly against it than he speaks against gay marriage.
If I had two Daddies like Jesus did (Joseph, God) I wouldn't feel very comfortable about speaking out on gay marriages, either.

IMO, the other states do have a right to fight back, and if the GLBT movement isn't careful, those that don't like being pushed around are going to get a strong enough movement to pass a national amendment. And if that happens, all state marriages recognizing same sex marriage will be called unconstitutional by the supreme court, end of story.

The GLBT groups should push more gently if they want to win, they are burning too many bridges too fast, IMHO.
You're paranoid! Maybe you have not noticed, but the words of the anti-gay rights movement are more aggressive than those of the pro-gay rights movement. Hateful, even.

Well, I personally believe that any Christian who opposes gay marriage on a legal basis is wrong to do so. Sure, you say it doesn’t follow Christian ideals, but so do a lot of the laws in this country. Not everyone is a Christian, and not everyone has the same beliefs as you. However, here is a short list of things that are specifically condemned in the Bible but are not illegal:

Gambling
Adultery
Disrespecting your parents
Greed
Jealousy
Not forgiving someone
Not giving charity
And so much more

Anyhoo, keep that in mind when you are debating the issue.

I think that for the sake of consistency, the religious traditionalists should be pushing for a ban on divorce. Divorce obviously is much more destructive to marriage than gays ever could be. Also, Jesus speaks much more strongly against it than he speaks against gay marriage.

There was a large movement against the implementation of such laizzes faire divorce reasons as "irreconsilable differences", but it failed. The horse is already out of the barn and no one reasonably expects it to ever be put back in. The same thing will happen with gay marriage once it is legalized. There will be some complaining for a while, but churches will eventually give up and focus on teaching their members whats acceptable of them instead.

If I had two Daddies like Jesus did (Joseph, God) I wouldn't feel very comfortable about speaking out on gay marriages, either.
You should be President.

You're paranoid! Maybe you have not noticed, but the words of the anti-gay rights movement are more aggressive than those of the pro-gay rights movement. Hateful, even.


How does that make me paranoid? I don't get it. I suggested (as some of them know already) that if they push too hard too fast the resistance will increase. AND, if the resistance increases too much, last years passed but not by the required 2/3rds marriage amendment will gain even more supporters because the people in the states that didn't want same-sex marriages will become even more vocal as they end up with cases in their states anyway and the Marriage Act turns out to not being able to stop them (as shown in the Iowa seperation of a gay couple joined in Vermont).

There's a big plan about how to to get it done, but it's not one giant homogenized army of advocates either, sometimes they fight amongst themselves:

Such as these two gay advocacy lawyers (on of which is actively suing in the California State courts) actively tried to STOP another gay case from going to Federal court because they were afraid it was too soon in their grand scheme of things, not that they didn't agree with what they want to happen eventually:

"We wish this case had not gone forward,'' said attorney Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represents 12 same-sex couples. The inability of gays and lesbians to marry makes it difficult to bring the human impact of laws like these before the court and makes it more likely that the federal law will be upheld, Minter said.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who is contesting California's marriage law in state court, joined Minter's group in asking Taylor to dismiss the federal case on the grounds that an unmarried couple isn't affected by the federal law. The judge disagreed, saying registered domestic partners like the plaintiffs in this case might qualify for federal marriage benefits if the federal law didn't exclude them. Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart said the office would probably renew the argument before the appeals court.

They are of course speaking about the Taylor case.

Taylor was ruling in a case brought by a private lawyer on behalf of two Orange County gay men, Christopher Hammer and Arthur Smelt. The case was undertaken against the advice of leading gay rights legal groups that have been trying to avoid a major federal same-sex marriage or DOMA case that they fear might significantly boost support for an anti-gay federal marriage amendment in Congress.

The judge's opinion is summarized by saying: "Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest. Encouraging the optimal union for rearing children by both biological parents is also a legitimate purpose of government," Judge Taylor wrote in his June 16 ruling in a case filed by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer of Orange County, Calif.

I'm not paranoid just because I talked about one side. If another side in this debate is obnoxiously hateful, how is that relevant to what I said?

I am against both gay marriage and divorce. :) Basically I'm a grumpy git who's several decades older than he appears.