In debates such as this, I think we should see what Jesus would do:
Or, you may wish to look at what Paul said about the subject of divorce:
And, in contrast, lets see what Jesus had to say about homosexual relationships:
Corollary: If a couple enters a marriage with the full intent to reproduce within the stipulated five years, and provides proof that they have made a sincere effort to do so, but fails to produce a child, they will be automatically enrolled in the nearest foster-care program and be assigned one.
I think that to remain consistent with biblical teachings divorce could still be allowed in rare circumstances, but divorced people could never be allowed to remarry or live in a relationship with a partner.
Seriously, I think it would be great if organizations put a lot of effort into this - get it out there in the public sphere, issue quotes from Jesus, and especially find prominent divorced (remarried) homophobes and set up full time pickets in front of their houses, places of business and churches.
**JESUS himself **directly called people who divorce and remarry adulterers. Adulterers do not enter the kingdom of heaven. It is very clearly stated in the bible in black and white.
My position stands.
No man. I call whoosh on your whoosh!
From my reading of post 3, it seemed like he was in on the joke and thinks that it is a similarly ill-conceived idea, although he did understand that it was a joke.
Or is this a triple-whoosh?
Of course not. That would make this a polygomous thread. We don’t allow that you know.
This would solve two problems at once: what gay man would actually marry if he had to remain celibate forever in case things didn’t end well?
Gays have a higher sex drive than heteros? Who knew? Do you have a cite?
Do you have a cite that that is what he said?
Standing takes a bit of stamina, but hey if you’re game…
No, but they do get laid more easily. No cite because I consider that an axiom.
PS: Chill man. It was just a joke. Gee.
Well, we’re talking about heathen adulterers who currently are running free about the country, destroying marriage as we know it. If they are allowed to continue the disgusting act of re-marrying after divorce, the moral fabric of the nation will continue to be torn. If these re-marrying adulterers are allowed to continue, it tarnishes my own marriage. I for one will not let this stand!
psst… don’t let on that it’s a joke.
I know this is just a counter argument to the anti-SSM people and no one is taking this thread seriously, but if I could attempt a mood change here . . .
What would be wrong with seriously limiting people to 2 state-sanctioned marriages for life? You get one mulligan. Beyond that you’re not trying hard enough or taking it seriously. People like Larry King and Elizabeth Taylor have been married to more people than a lot of people ever date.
I know it’s an argument not made fully in earnest, but I honestly believe serial divorcers are many times the threat to marriage that homosexuals are (errr, 0 times 0 is 0, but you get what I’m saying.)
Seriously speaking, the problem is that banning divorce-enabled polyandrous marriage is a terrible imposition of the government on individuals’ freedom. Obviously those who would ban gay marriage don’t give a fig about such things when it’s not them, but moral people are opposed to such things regardless of who is on the wrong end of the governmental tyranny.
And yes, it’s specifically polyandrous marriage we’re talking about here - note that the biblical quotes are very specific that it’s only bad when the woman ends up having been married to multiple husbands. A man, on the other hand, is allowed to rack up all the females he can, harem-style - he just can’t divorce any of them.
I just mean, if you’re going to take the marriage is sacred, blah blah blah angle, then why not limit everyone to 2 marriages? If they want to get “married” again after that, they can call it a domestic partnership or whatever. It seems to me that marriage being for life is infinitely more intrinsic to the institution than it being between members of the opposite sex. If you’re going to get divorced every 5 or 10 years then you’re not married; you’re dating. And if this is too strong an imposition then government-recognized marriage means nothing and they should discontinue the practice.
Some fabrics look better unravelled.
Well, if you were actually going to take marriage as sacred, then the people we’re dealing with aren’t the sort to offer even one mulligan (except to themselves). If they actually cared even one speck of a whit about actually protecting marriage, adultery would be a criminal act, divorce would be illegal (absent your spouse committing adultery first), and couples would be considered married until by both their deaths did they depart - making widowers off-limits. (You may or may not relax this to allow men, but not women, to have harems -depending on the particular religious beliefs you’re sticking to.)
But the fact of the matter is that few or none of the anti-gay-marriage types actually want to protect or strenghten the institution of marriage. They are solely interested in punishing ‘sinners’, specifically in this case persons in gay relationships, who are by their accounts committing a whole host of sins (extramarital sex, ‘unnatural’ non-hetero sex, defilement of the body, and probably others), and are scary and threatening besides. Of course, if they actually admitted this, they’d be painted as religious bigots and blown off, so they shout meaninglessly about ‘sanctity of marriage’ instead.
I just find it so sad that immediately after same-sex marriage was deemed to be legal in Canada, all of the hetero marriages stopped being meaningful, and our society collapsed.
I mean, after those Godless gay people were given the same rights as the rest of us “normal” people, I turned to my wife and said, “honey, I guess it’s over between us now.” She agreed that our marriage was, as of that point, merely a cheap sham.
How cruel of those gays to destroy us in that way!
Marriage is sacred when two people entering into marriage consider it sacred and make it so. It’s not sacred in bulk, by default. How could it be?
Well, step one, you pretend to the best of you ability that civil marriages or marriages in a different religion or sect simply don’t ever happen - you imagine that everybody you know who is married got their marriage at your church sect. Of course, you can’t pretend this about gay marriages, since adam and steve couldn’t have got their marriage at your church, so to preserve your fantasies you try to prevent them from getting married at all. (That’s step two.)
My parents are Mormon - doctorinally speaking they quite explicitly consider all non-mormon marriages to be sham marriages…but gloss over and back off of the subject if it is brought up. It’s kind of pathetic, really.