How can Christian Righters be against gay marriage but not divorce?

This isn’t a pitting of divorce/remarriage or anybody in particular but an honest question. Since it’s on a religious/political topic however I’ll put it here.

I’ve never understood this double standard and I’m seeing a lot of it this year. I know many people who support McCain in part because of his stance on gay marriage (which isn’t that different from Obama’s) and abortion among other issues, and in Georgia they used to support Bob Barr and others who preached against it from the [del]pulpit[/del] capitol as well. John Hagee gets cheers whenever he brings up passing Constitutional amendments defining marriage as “one man/one woman”.

Jesus never said jack about gay marriage- it was admittedly just not something that anyone discussed much at the time (save perhaps in the court of a few mad emperors). However, in all three synoptic Gospels (and for perspective the three synoptic Gospels disagree on Jesus’s genealogy and on the details of his birth and what his last words were and the order of his miracles, etc.) Jesus specifically preaches against remarriage after a divorce, at least while the ex-spouse is still alive, and goes so far as to call it adultery. Now while it’s true he preaches forgiveness of sin, he also says that repentance is more than words- Matthew for example is ordered to return the money he skimmed as a tax collector- thus it would make sense that if you really were repentant for adultery-divorce then you’d return to your ex-spouse. (Herod Antipas was most certainly told to return to his former wife by John the Baptist, and Herodias was told to return to the first uncle she married.)


I know so many Christians who are against gay marriage and pro “Family Values” and even use this as an excuse for why they are voting McCain, ignoring that McCain is an adulterer who divorced his first wife, married his mistress, and lives with her still. (This is not a McCain pitting- it’s immaterial to me whether he’s married to his first wife or his tenth, it’s his political stances that matter to me and not his personal life.) John Hagee, Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich and so many others who are pro “family values” and “sanctity of marriage”- same story- adulterers/divorced/remarried, all in direct violations of the words of Christ himself. For that matter some of the most anti-gay marriage folk I know (and living in AL that’s a lot) are on their second or third or whatever marriages.

Hypocrisy is nothing new, but does anybody know how people can justify such a BLATANT discrepancy? I’ve tried to start discussions on it but most people won’t talk about it. Is it that they haven’t READ the New Testament and it’s ignorance?

Again, I’m irreligious and have absolutely nothing against divorce- I’m all for it in fact. No sense remaining in a relationship if you’re miserable. BUT then I’m not “pro marital sanctity” amendment (aka “anti judges legislating policy”) either.

Any theories as to how people get past this seeming obstacle? Or why people who divorce and remarry don’t encounter a lot more condemnation from the religious conservatives? It’s hardly ever railed against any more.

They may need to get divorced some day (or may have already), simple as that.

Adultery is one of the freaking 10 commandments and that doesn’t seem to bother a large percentage of them either.

:stuck_out_tongue: Religion <--------------------------------------------------------------> Logic :dubious:

Because they themselves don’t want to be gay married (or at least won’t admit to it) but do find divorce occasionally convenient.

I’ve pondered this too (I’m a Christian in a conservative denomination), and the best that I can come up with is the fact that Christian’s look at what’s right and wrong the same way everyone else does: If it could never happen to me, then it’s bad. If it could, then maybe not so much. It’s the same reason you can get caught with a half a whatever of crack in your pocket and go to prison for ten years, but can drive drunk ten times before getting anything more severe than a slap on the wrist. I’m exaggerating obviously, but there is a serious discrepancy.

My main problem with Christian politics is the complete inability for my fellow Christians to allow the slightest bit of pragmatism into the discussion. Do we want to provide adequate sex education to teenagers? Of course not, they should wait until marraige to do that! Ok, well the aborition rate is going to go up then, is that ok? Of course not, abortion needs to be illegal!

There are a lot of ways to improve the marriage situation in this country that would arguably be more effective than picking on homosexuals. Why don’t we mandate that citizens can’t get married before age 25? Or can’t get remarried within three years of a previous divorce? Or have all potential newlyweds undergo premarriage counseling and educaton courses?

Why can’t we do all that? Ah yes, *because it affects us. * It’s much easier to work on stuff that affects them. On preview, jk1245 said the same thing much more succintly. :stuck_out_tongue:

For the record the Bible allows divorce in a couple situations (adultery and desertion).

I got into this exact discussion with my dad the other week. He insisted that McCain’s adultury wasn’t relevant, since Christianity is all about repentance and forgiveness for sin, and he thinks that McCain has truly repented. “Oh, so he’s back with Carol?”, I asked. Dad’s response was that it would be even worse to break up two families.

No, it doesn’t make much sense to me, either. But that’s a little perspective, for what it’s worth.

I’m pretty sure the people who make noise about eliminating no-fault divorce are probably the same folks going on about the sanctity of marriage. If so, they might be misguided, but they’re not hypocrits. Except the politicians, but they’re hypocrits practically by definition.

Some of them are. Viewing the Christian Right as a monolithic, homogeneous entity is a huge over-generalization.

I have often imagined a beleagured pro-gay-marriage legislator getting up in front of his conservative state legislature and introducing a bill that would prohibit divorce.

“Here,” he’d proclaim “are some Christian family values for all of you to vote for!”

“But Kevin,” his fellow statesmen would cry out (I don’t know why his name is Kevin in this fantasy, but it is) “Kevin! This abridges freedom of choice! That limitation from the bible is obsolete in these modern times!”

“A HA!” He’d shout while jabbing a righteous finger in their collective faces.

The assembled representatives would immediately realize the hypocracy of their stances, and would hang their heads. Many of them would bury their faces in their hands and weep.

That’s worth saying, but it’s not sufficient.

The New Testament has a lot to say about hypocricy and Christ’s words on divorce are pretty clear. The gospels have nothing to say about homosexuality (though St. Paul’s views are another matter.)

Sure, the fundis are not monolithic, but pretty much all of them are full of shit, unless they can adequately address the OP’s conflict in a non-phony manner.
Hats off to Slacker for attempting to deal with the issue honestly. It is easy, after all, for someone on the outside like myself to just run my mouth. I’ll also note that there are certain orthodox conservative Christian sects who take seriously the command to judge not lest you be judged. But others are just swarmy.

Take this with the contents of a salt truck, because I am not Christian, divorced, or gay (though I am married). I imagine that they justify their behavior as a necessary evil, the least wrong option among a host of vile choices. The fact that it’s explicitly verboten in the Bible is forgivable (and, I suppose, in their minds forgiven) because they feel that a divorce beats a loveless marriage. I don’t think there is any Scriptural support for an exemption based on “irreconcilable differences,” but that’s my guess at their motivation.

Christians aren’t against gay marriage for any reason to do with the Bible. They are against it because gay people are “icky”. Anything they say about the Bible is just to justify their own sense of distaste over the idea of gay sex.

They aren’t against divorce (except Catholics I guess) because divorce isn’t icky.

I was raised Christian, so I spent most of my early life surrounded by fundamentalist Christians, and let me tell you it takes a special kind of mind to swallow that type of hypocrisy and not blink. Indeed, most Christians I’ve known are not only bereft of logic, but downright borderline psychopathic. They only care about their own petty desires and need for controlling others, and use the so-called “Good” book to justify it all.

The Bible explicitly condones genocide (II Chronicles 15), incest (Lot’s daughters), slavery, wife beating and child abuse (Leviticus, et al) yet Christians merely gloss over these things. There is NO contradiction in the Bible against evolution, unless you read the first two chapters of Genesis as literal fact – but if you do that, you’re faced with the conundrum of Genesis 1 having Adam & Eve created on the sixth day, while Genesis 2 says that Eve was not created until days later. No Christian I have met has reasonably explained this contradiction within the literal translation. The interpretation of prophecy seems to change willy-nilly, too. Until '89 or so, the predictions in Revelation (i.e. one-third of the Earth burned up) was interpreted as nuclear war, but once the Soviet Union collapsed…eureka! It’s now about global warming, and the nuclear war aspect never applied. Oh, and we’ve always been at war with Eurasia, too…

I do have some pity for some Christians, though – because at the heart of it all, is the fear that you must obey God or else YOU WILL GO TO HELL AND BURN FOREVER!!! and that’s a very tough mental trap to overcome. But…wait! Where does the Bible explicity describe HELL? Hmm, nowhere. No Rapture, either. Makes you wonder if these so-called Godfolk have even read the fucking book, or just believe whatever their pastor/priest/minister tells them. Probably the latter. Christians are supposed to be like sheep, after all, and boy do they got that part down pat.

Is there any recollection in the bible of Jesus’s sexual persuasion? He was 30+ when he died, and I’d be surprised if he’d never followed his father’s command to “go forth and multiply”. Unless he was gay. He did seem to spend most of his time hanging out with guys.

For the same reason that people who claim that Leviticus says homosexuality is a sin also eat shellfish and wear mixed-fabric clothes (which is explicitly forbidden in the same book): they’re not following the bible, they’re using it to justify their own prejudices. People tend not to be vehemently against things they want to do, so straight married rich people can quite easily take an uncompromising stance on sex before marriage, homosexuality, abortion et al because it doesn’t affect them. As others have said, divorce is a tricky one because that’s something that probably appeals to some of them (or is something they’ve done).

Christianity, as pointed out, makes no sense and it’s holy book is full of contradictions and things that it’s followers simply ignore. Basically, if they were the sort of people who can’t ignore contradictions and inconvenient facts, they wouldn’t be Christian in the first place. It’s to be expected that their political and moral positions will be inconsistent; they respect neither facts nor logic in the first place. They base their beliefs on faith, which means they don’t have to make sense or be consistent.

Also, their own daughter will never ever have premarital sex, and any girl with whom their son has premarital sex is a slut and has driven him to sin. Oi, what an attack of the coughs…

Should I even bother or is this gonna be the typical Doper Lefty unbeliever pile-on?



Btw, valid Q from Sampiro & there are some valid responses, but the Usual Suspects have already pissed on the thread.

I don’t understand the rolleyes on this one, nor do I see the use of leet anywhere when making the paraphrased statements you highlighted above. If they had been made is such a way I would understand your reluctance to reply but based on what I’ve read I’m not sure I do understand.

Personally, even based on my very minor understanding on the bible, I have to admit that I don’t understand why breaking one of the ten commandments (adultery) should rank lower than something that is not mentioned in that list? If the ten commandments are supposed to be primary list of what you should or should not do in life then surely these should be held up above all else?

That’s pretty unambiguous, yet I don’t see many Christian fundamentalists suggesting that adulterers be put to death. What, this isn’t a valid point because it happens to be an uncomfortable conginitive dissonance for Christians? Roll your eyes all you want, it won’t make the stance of fundamentalists any less hypocritical.