Posted on 02/05/2014 4:15:29 AM PST by xzins
*NOTE. To answer your questions: no, I have not actually been divorced four times. I’ve been married once, and I’m still married to her, and I’ll never be married to anyone else. The title was tongue-in-cheek. I was writing it from the perspective of the sorts of people who rant about the sanctity of marriage, yet have racked up multiple ex-spouses. Perhaps I should have been more clear about this. In any case, there it is. I appreciate your concern.
Despite the author’s point — and it’s a valid observation — the problem is really that the only marriage is natural marriage. Unnatural marriage is not marriage.
His reference to children of divorce make that case, and he missed it.
I had a boss once who would begin conversations with, “Mary (eyes upward) my, let’s see, fourth, fifth...sixth wife...”
He was impossible to get along with, yet each woman he married was at fault. All of us who knew him thought...well, maybe not.
I had another boss in his late fifties with a lot of framed pictures of beautiful young woman. He saw me looking at them and started from left to right. “That’s Sarah, my second wife, Janice, my third, Karen, (she was a stewardess) my fourth”...all the way to six. All this time I’d assumed they were his daughters. Wife one was not represented because, I’m guessing, she was his age.
Yep, marriage has its problems. But they’re mostly due to the two parties involved.
Actually the read elephant in the room on the subject of marriage is who killed it. The Left now commonly cites the divorce rate as evidence that traditional marriage is already dead, but they are the ones that introduced no fault divorce all over the country and ensured its demise (as well as the introduction of the notion that sex, love, and marriage are all unrelated, nor even that it might be better if they were linked).
It really does take a heck of a heap of chutzpah to castigate the other side of a debate for a situation you created.
The authors point is the point and it’s the critical one. I’m sure you’re the exception but as a whole the American Christian culture is a gelatinous mass of contradiction on this issue - yet we want to rail on this issue ignoring the board in our own eye.
Live together and share funds-insurance tax stuff with each other. That’s it. No adoptions from outside the union. Should not be allowed to teach or mentor children in any way.
I completely understand the author’s point; that is, straight marriage has severe issues because of the high divorce rate. At this point in my life, I know more divorced people than I do married couples. HOWEVER, marriage was designed for the procreation of children and the establishment of a strong parental unit/home. IMHO, gay marriages brings down the sanctity of straight ones.
I agree that the author’s point about divorce is entirely legitimate.
Reality is, though, it is a ridiculous jump in logic to call anal penetration by a penis marriage... just because John and Susy got divorced.
Now, the author doesn’t say that. He sounds like a traditional marriage guy, but he argues that the gay marriage folks have a point when they showcase the sorry state of divorce. He then should make a stronger case that there is no legitimacy for so-called “gay marriage” no matter what the traditional marriage divorce rate.
Exactly-it is the definition of marriage that the homosexuals are destroying.
Someone who gets it. I don’t like same-sex marriage and hate the idea that it’s being forced down the throats of more and more states but it isn’t near the threat to traditional marriage that the easing of divorce laws have been. Marriage went for a permanent partnership to a temporary contract that lasts only till something better comes along.
-— HOWEVER, marriage was designed for the procreation of children and the establishment of a strong parental unit/home.-—
The break in the. Dam occurred when intercourse was separated from procreation with the acceptance of various means of induced sterility, aka, birth control.
Paul VI’s encyclical, On the Regulation of Birth, was prophetic.
Marriage is not and never has been a “right”. If it were a “right” the state could not tell you that you can’t marry your sister/brother. It could not tell you that you can’t marry one of your children. You must get permission from the state to marry.
Also, if it were a right, you could “demand” a partner.
There are some Freepers who like to bleat that they have been married multiple times and seem to think it’s some kind of badge of honor (as if to say that they have proved more than one woman thought they were the cat’s meow).
What it instead tells me that a) they have extremely poor judgment in their choice of mates, and b) they don’t honor their promises, i.e., “to have and to hold from this day forth.”
It gives insight into how loyal of a friend that person might be.
I didn't understand it that way. I understood him to be arguing that "gay" marriage is beside the point. Real marriage is the point: exclusive, permanent, and life-giving marriage. Real marriage didn't fall apart because of a small percentage of nutty people doing sick things with each other. Real marriage fell apart because an absolute majority of people don't want it.
In my opinion, "the right," whatever that includes, can't fundamentally affect the direction of the country, because they don't want to.
Was it you, frapster, in a post above, who said "gelatinous mass of contradiction"? Raucous round of applause! People recognize the social damage caused by easy divorce, and they certainly don't like it when their spouse up and dumps them ... but they don't want the law changed, because they want the option open. People recognize the social pathologies of fatherless "families," but they like free sex outside marriage.
People don't want an "anything goes" society, but they don't want a "theocracy" - I'm quoting some poster on some thread. That is, they don't want "anything goes," but they want everything to go that they, personally, want, while somehow precluding the things they don't want ... yet. When they decide they do want it, then anyone who disapproves is a "theocrat."
I will close this rant with some wise words from Sarah Palin: "Build the America you want in your home ... and keep looking up." (not claiming the quote is exact)
First, excellent Sarah Palin quote.
Next, You know that "divorce" is a homosexual marriage argument, and I know, so it's highly likely the author knows it. It's not a new idea. His comment about Paris Hilton and Elton John demonstrates it. "The institution of marriage is crumbling beneath us; it’s under attack, it’s mortally wounded, it’s sprawled out on the pavement with bullet wounds in its back, coughing up blood and gasping for breath. And guess who did this? It wasn’t Perez Hilton or Elton John, I can tell you that."
I think the author brought up homosexuals simply to dismiss their relevance to the issue. However, it could be argued. On the other hand, beginning to argue about homosexuals is a distraction from the real problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.