Posted on 06/26/2015 12:40:06 PM PDT by Marie
My two cents on the gay marriage thing.
Gays didn't destroy marriage. Neither did the Supreme Court. Hetrosexuals did that a long time ago. They forgot that marriage is not supposed to be based on romantic love. Historically, it's a contract between four entities. The man, the woman, G-d, and the State. Each party is supposed to have both rights and obligations to the other.
But we (hetros) made marriage about 'feelings' and romantic love. We chipped away at our obligations to the state and forgot that we have actual obligations to our partner. We decriminalized infidelity. We created no-fault divorce. We wanted all of the benefits, without all those messy obligations.
We got what we wanted. A meaningless, hollow union. Now we dare cry that gay people want to play in our park and get the benefits, too?
Conservatives are going about this all wrong. Don't fight gay marriage. Fight to make marriage mean something again.
- require premarital counseling and a six month (legal) engagement prior to the act.
- make prenups mandatory. (and they should include the management of future children and alimony.)
- criminalize infidelity with jail time (even when the sex act has the consent of the partner) and an automatic loss of all parental rights for the offender.
- End no-fault divorce. Make a list of legitimate reasons to leave a marriage and stick to it. (abuse, infidelity, addiction, etc)
- limit child support to $500 per child - no matter how much the father makes (women can't eat their cake and have it, too)
- have automatic 50/50 parental custody (with exceptions for abuse and addiction)
- once a divorce is initiated, there must be a 12 month 'cooling off period' where all of the rules for infidelity apply. They're still legally bound by the contract and if they stray, all of the jail time and loss of fortune and child custody apply.
Make people THINK before jumping into the lake in a fit of lust and infatuation. Create consequences for not honoring the contract. Make the contract difficult to break.
As long as it's a free ride for all of us, why do we even care who comes along?
If people still want to make *that* social contract and commit to one another once the institution has weight, then great.
Knock yourselves out.
But we won't do it because we (conservative hetros) love not having any actual responsibility. We fear the real commitment. We want the 'easy out'. We don't want to face the consequences for our actions. We don't want to have to pay a price for failure. We want to gimme, gimme, gimme and not worry too much about giving back.
I might have to see that one.
I’d stream it on Netflix, if I had streaming speed for Netflix. :P
I’ll have to check with my medieval group to confirm my understanding. I’ll get back!
How many handmaidens did King David have?
“Also, I thought you were on a thread denigrating Scott Walker’s idea on fighting gay marriage...”
Yes, I mentioned that in my other post as the only thread I can remember the whole day talking about any “strategy” to fight gay marriage. I wasn’t denigrating his idea, just observing that with the state of the government today, I don’t think even an amendment would restrain them.
Smack-dab BINGO!
IMO, the same way others on this board get into a frothy panic when the thought of killing SS/Medicare/etc. come up.
You know, the same group that screams “Hands off *my* XYZ”...pay no mind to the Constitution.
Instead of rising up to cut off the head of Liberal/Socialism; We the People contently let their own greed and social standing (aka EMOTIONS) take over.
Thanks. Not positive on the issue myself.
Didn’t I already cite David as an example of disobedience, even though God at the end of the day called him “a man after my own heart”? The examples of Bathsheba, Michal et al are set as examples of how not to behave, especially in light of Deuteronomy 17:17.
So which was it? Disobedient or a man after Gods on heart?
Can’t be both.
L
I can’t get a straight answer from friends - just that it was Catholic law that you couldn’t marry your first cousin without a dispensation or marry your brother’s widow without one. I still think European royalty got away with it more than the English but I can’t prove it at the moment.
Catholic doctrine from around 800 to 1215 went well beyond first cousins. It even included “relatives” thru godparents.
The prohibited degree of consanguinity was to the 7th degree, which meant sixth cousins were prohibited from marrying. Given the necessarily intermarried nature of royalty and nobility, this provided a rich source of revenue from dispensations.
in 1215 it was change to the 4th degree, which meant any couple who shared a great-great grandparent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibited_degree_of_kinship#Medieval_canon_law
David had eight wives named in the Bible, I believe, with some unspecified additional number.
The Church did not institute dispensations at the drop of a hat - although that’s how it is often portrayed. Richard the Third, as the Duke of Gloucester, married his first cousin without a dispensation because it was so long in coming. In fact, for centuries, people thought he married illegally before the dispensation showed up in the Vatican archives. It came a while after his marriage. Henry the 8th, of course, is a notorious example of a monarch who got a really rough time from the Pope about dispensations. But then Henry did have an ability to set people’s teeth on edge.
I have no idea how much dispensations cost or even if they cost anything at all. I’m not particularly interested in Canon law - only as it applies occasionally to medieval English monarchs.
Yes it can be both, or else there is no repentance and/or forgiveness—both of those too.
Solomon is famed for his wisdom, but he fell into the trap of disobeying the command not to multiply wives to himself too, never mind letting those wives talk him into building shrines to foreign gods. Ecclesiastes is an outline and summary of his repentance of those sins.
I’m not sure what you are saying—are you suggesting that if the Advocate agrees, I must be wrong? Or if the Advocate agrees, I should change my mind because I wouldn’t want to agree with them?
I am not suggesting you change your mind - simply that I hear this kind of stuff from the gay press all the time - that they would be better exponents of marriage since straight people have so belittled it. I think that’s bull.
Many gays have convinced themselves that if they “marry”, they’ll quit the drugging and drinking and orgies. They won’t.
Ridiculous post. Fags and liberals redefined marriage against God’s laws in a way that makes lucifer proud.
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.