divorce and gay marriage

[anniemcu]

I may be mistaken (wouldn't be the first time, or the last), but I think Cran's anti-divorce diatribe was meant to be facetious. Just replace "divorce" with "homosexuality" and it sounds like the current mantra of the fanatical-Christian-right.

That's just what I was about to say! You line thief you.

[aderyn_du]

I was wondering if mabey I lost my "edge." I haven't been in the right universe lately anyway...

You and me both, Cran... but apparently not the same wrong universe, either.

[rh]

Gay people who have married are also getting divorces.

[aderyn_du]

rh, that was just perfect.

(good movie, too)

[Jack]

rh, that was just perfect.

(good movie, too)

I agree.

[spittin_in_the_wind]

You scared me for a minute there, Cran...I thought you'd gone completely psycho (or fundamentalist)!

Robin

[aderyn_du]

You scared me for a minute there, Cran...I thought you'd gone completely psycho (or fundamentalist)!

Robin

See, see!! I wasn't the only one!!!

[Jack]

You scared me for a minute there, Cran...I thought you'd gone completely psycho (or fundamentalist)!

Robin

See, see!! I wasn't the only one!!!

There's a difference?

[spittin_in_the_wind]

You scared me for a minute there, Cran...I thought you'd gone completely psycho (or fundamentalist)!

Robin

See, see!! I wasn't the only one!!!

There's a difference?

Well, yes. You see, one is treatable, the other is rather resistant to treatment.

Robin

[Wormdiet]

A lot of people take marriage very seriously. When I got married, it did mean something. Whether it is analagous to a relationship has a lot to do with the debate.

My original thoughts to the anti-gay marriage argument was that it was some new manifestation of homophobia, but now I think I was wrong. I now think that many people saw the gay-marriage movement as going just one step too far. For many "traditionalists", marriage is still a religious institution or sacroment, and they believe that the gay-marriage movement is taking civil rights into the religious arena. That's how I see their side of the argument, and although I don't share their fear that religion will be overrun by liberalism, I can see that their argument has some basis.

I haven;t read the whole thread but to point out the obvious:

If marriage is a RELIGIOUS concept then WHY is it defined by the state? No one writes laws about personal salvation. . .

Unless the establishment clause was abolished recently. . .


I personally think marriage as a legal concept should be replaced by one of "primary dependency." Your primary dependent could be one other person - wife, husband, only child, brother, etc. LET religions define marriage, but allow the legal benefits of committed relationships to everybody.

[Flyingcursor]

I almost thought Cran had gone bonkers too until I read it twice more. Good job. You haven't lost your edge, you've just attained a new level of subtlety.


I always hear people say the second marriage is better then the first and in my case this is true. I wonder though, if second marriages tend to be better and more permanent is it because we are so terrified with the horrors of divorce that we are more willing to work out the rough edges?

[dubhlinn]

"A second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience."
-- Samuel Johnson

I have seen this quotation attributed to Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw.
Having been married once and divorced once I agree with the sentiment expressed.

Slan,
D.

[Walden]

From my perspective, I am opposed to divorce, and then I am double opposed to remarriage. Marriage is a lifetime commitment between one man and one woman till death. It is a sacred relation, with serious and solemn vows.

It is too often entered into lightly. Individuals overtaken in carnal desires, wind up married for the wrong reasons, and then are unwilling to go the distance.

Divorce was fine at one time, biblically speaking.

• Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

"uncleanness" simply means: nude, naked, blemish, shame, or disgrace.

So, what's changed that has caused you to disagree with the bible?

What has changed is the coming of the Messiah.

[TomB]

the term "Marriage" to me, has religious connotations associated with it, and as such, should not be the province of the state (or federal) government in the first place.
If two people want to enter into a "civil union", in other words, hold property together, be responsible for the other's medical, etc. - then they should be able to. Doesn't matter if the "they" are man / woman, two woman, two men, mother and daughter, two friends, whatever.
A "marriage" is a religious ceremony where a religious community is giving it's blessing on the union. The religious entity can set the parameters of said union.
But - this state doesn't allow civil unions, so my thoughts mean nothing here (and I voted against the proposed amendment back in the fall).

This is just another of the many areas where I tend to think Libertarian-like and feel that the government has gotten into things it has no business being into.

Missy

Well, the state is the one that issues a couple of "marriage" liscense, not a "civil union" liscense, and the state does not give a darn if the couple is getting married in a church, or a JP, or whatever. The legal definition of marriage does not denote religion, but vests things such as property rights, medical rights, etc.

I agree with you that a church should be able to decide for itself who can and cannot marry within that church- while I may disagree with a particular church's position, if I'm not a member of that particular church, then I'm not so concerned.

The issue to me as far as the legality of gay marriage, is "legal" equality. That is what I would be basing my vote on.

All the Best, Tom

[missy]

Tom - just to clarify (which I did later to Cran)
The amendment I voted against would have prohibited gay marriage in the state. So, I basically voted FOR gay marriage.

Missy