FIRST PERSON: The marital enemy few speak of

Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press ^ | 23JUL04 | By Samuel Smith

[longtermmemmory]

Nobody can or wants to do away with divorce. (the orthodox church for example recognizes the need for divorce. You even have to go through an echlisiastical divorce to remary in the church. Divorce not anulment.)

The reality is that divorce laws need to be rewritten. Divorce laws were written with the notion of the man provideing for children and for an ex wife to get on her feet (or income if she was unskilled and unemployable). They were not written for the "at whim" structure they have now.

One step which was adopted by some states was the institution of a waiting period and/or a pre marital class.

The next step is to somehow get married people to realize what their married life expectations are.

Having done a few divorces for clients, it seems many men get married and expect change into married men. Many women get married and change into married feminists. They see zero risk in any marriage, if they misbehave or a whim strikes them, they take the kids take 1/2 or more and cash out "because".

Change will only happen when judges are willing to make it happen using the laws we have.

Courts now mandate mediation to avoid trials for division of property in a divorce. Why not USE the rules which a judge can mandate marital counseling? They are only collecting dust.

It is not theocratic to use law to AT LEAST TRY and repair a marriage rather than just go "oh well, next."

[AdequateMan]

yes, I did. I thought someone would see it. You got it, right?
I thought it was subtle, but I know the standard of debate of FR is pretty good so somebody was bound to get it.

[little jeremiah]

You said:

"Explain the difference between a restrictive moralist American theocracy and Iran."

I'll give it a shot. Here are three definitions of theocracy I just found on the web.

(1)
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.

(2)
1. Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity.

2. The state thus governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before it became a kingdom.

(3)
1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided) 2: the belief in government by divine guidance

A theocracy does NOT mean a government INFORMED by traditional moral values as delineated in religious scriptures. In fact, the founders of this country, noted by their diversity in religious beliefs, and their detestation of state mandated religions, were enthusiastic and vocal in their support of the 10 Commandments and the necessity of virtue founded on religious belief.

A theocracy would be if only Baptists (or members of any other particular religion) were allowed to become elected (or probably appointed) officials, or were allowed to vote, and the Baptist (or whichever) creed was enforced on everyone.

We do not have a theocracy, and never have.

Here's some quotes from founders and Blackstone, considered the father of law by all:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society." John Adams

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. John Quincy Adams

"From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct." John Quincy Adams

"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being....And, consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will...this will of his Maker is called the law of nature. These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil...This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this... Sir William Blackstone

[AdequateMan]

I wasn't being serious about divorce- it's just that my wife is divorced and has caught quite a bit of flack at church from the ladies' prayer circles. They don't know he held a loaded pistol to her head but do know other abusive elements and still insist she failed to "make it work", and that if he lied about being a Christian, it was her wifely duty to bring him to God.
And yeah, I resent that.
But I posted the divorce thing sarcastically. Of course people should try. But once the loaded gun is out, you ain't gotta try no more. Thank God she had no children with him. (it was 1 year only)
I totally agree that marriage is an effort. It is a trial of one's ability to choose what is right for another instead of onesself. It is sacred to me. I just don't want the state to enforce that on others in my behalf.
=\\\\

[little jeremiah]

You said:

"How would you go about forcing people to adhere to the word of God? How would you keep the Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists from doing this to you?"

The basics of morality are all the same in the above religions, as in their scriptures and teachings. You obviously know nothing about them.

Your comment after that is stupid, childish, and reveals where your interests and loyalty really lie.

[little jeremiah]

That's an interesting opinion you have. Could you back it up with any sources and reasoning other than your own wants and wishes?

[AdequateMan]

was the personal attack really warranted in this case? So you think my argument lacked merit. So you disagreed. Where was the childish part again? I missed it. Where did I become childish or show my "loyalties"?
Are you saying that because I disagree with you, I serve another master?

[AdequateMan]

I am sorry that you found my comment childish. It was meant to be lighthearted. I know it was out of context but this is a forum of grown ups (except for me) and I figured you could take it.

[little jeremiah]

When people support and promote crap like homosexual marriage, one never knows when the humor begins.

[little jeremiah]

Loyalties meaning your heart and your interests. When someone aggressively promotes homosexual marriage, supports homosexuality and its interests, and makes very hollow and irrational arguments attempting to use religion in that endeavor, I point it out.

Sorry you don't like it.

As far as who you serve, that's your business.

[AdequateMan]

The basics of morality are all the same in the above religions, as in their scriptures and teachings. You obviously know nothing about them.

While I may have used some poor examples, what I am getting at is the legal impossibility of using the Bible to justify to the secular community why it is that these people should be denied a government institution which is not denied to others, which the State finds to be more acceptable for reasons found in the Bible, Koran, and other religious texts. It is this that I find to be at odds with our stated principles of equal protection and first amendment to the Constitution. I realize that many countries have based portions of their legal code on the older legal codes that still exist because they are a part of a larger religious system and structure. What I still don't get is how we go from the Bible to a Constitutional amendment which restricts this marriage issue only to us. And how we justify that to a people who don't agree with the religious stance on homosexuality. Don't take this personally.

[Melas]

How come these discussions can never be conducted without the erection of strawmen on every corner? Why can't we have a legitimate discussion on WHERE, not if the government should draw a line somewhere on the marraige map?

Instead we get libertarian strawmen that government should license any union at all. This side usually maintains that any and all relationships are appropriate. Then the inevitable strawman is provided. If government can stop homosexuals from marrying, government can stop high school sweethearts from marrying.

Now, before you celebrate, your argument is no better. The whole schtick that if we let homosexuals marry, then we must let 6 year olds marry their father is every bit the strawman.

The whole thing is just getting old. There is no real discussion going on in these threads anymore.

I'd pay good money for a reasoned discussion on WHERE the line should be drawn, and why.

[Mockingbird For Short]

The definition of marriage... was handed down to us by the generation before us, and the one before them, and so on and so forth. It is a standard passed down through the wisdom of the ages. What is not okay is for it to be redefined by an authoritarian judiciary. We the people have a right to define the foundational structure of our own culture. We should not be so arrogant as to flippantly disregard this inherited wisdom, this standard that is so conguent with the very nature of human existence.

Yes, Ghost! By opposing gay marriage, we are not espousing a new morality or banging deviants over the head with a bigoted new rule. We are simply defending traditionalism, a traditionalism that has worked for a very long time.

[AdequateMan]

Loyalties meaning your heart and your interests. When someone aggressively promotes homosexual marriage, supports homosexuality and its interests, and makes very hollow and irrational arguments attempting to use religion in that endeavor, I point it out. Sorry you don't like it. As far as who you serve, that's your business. Could you possibly just be a little more condescending and demonize me a little more please, instead of the issue of how a religious view can be codified into law only for you and not for the burqa people? It's that which I am curious about, not your analysis of my personality based on posts to a message board. Thanks. I am happily married, have two sons, and am a raging heterosexual. But thanks for your concern. I am also a veteran, a capitalist, a Christian, and a good person (mostly). I don't encourage homosexuality, I simply want to know why it is you feel that you can impose your view of morality (and mine) on someone else with force. Law is force. Government works with force to enforce law. What I want to know is how you go from people should to people must. That's all. It isn't personal, it's not directed at you, and if you went to my church I would probably enjoy your company. This is about an issue. Let's not get sidetracked analyzing each other's sexual proclivities from their statements for or against a piece of legislation.

[Melas]

I'm curious. What would you build for a better model?

[AdequateMan]

BTW, my posts on the subject reflect more my desire that our Government protect all equally, and stay the heck out of personal issues, than any support of gay marriage as an institution. Heck, I don't care about it, but I care about the government telling people what to do and who to do it to. And I care because we're becoming the minority and this big ol' controlling government will be aiming its sights on conservatives in my sons generation. I don't want the government being the arbiter of personal behavior. Don't read any more into it than that.

[Little Bill]

Licensing of Marriage became a civil institution because of Luther and the Reformation. Before the Reformation Marriage was a religious rite and divorce was condemned.

[MissAmericanPie]

It has nadda to do with "pride", or being "superior". Homosexuals are NOT covered by Christ's blood unless they repent just like the rest of us have to. All sinners who do not repent are under the wrath of God just like in the Old Testament. To pat a homosexual on the back and tell him he's okay is to condemn him to eternal loss. They hate the idea that there is a God who will judge us all, and they hate those that relate that fact to them. The hate comes from the sinner, not the messenger.

However, the majority of homosexuals not only refuse to repent, they call God a liar by denying they are committing a sin. Should a healthy society accept their behavior as normal?

It's "normal" for a heathen society to accept homosexuality, and heathen societies are not blessed by God. Not being blessed by God effects all of us. This nation was founded on Christian principles and this nation was blessed to give the world medicine, electricity, communications, flight, the list goes on. Now we are watching it all be "outsourced" the farther we remove ourselves from God.

[Theo]

Hey! -- that's funny! You're bringing us correction for bringing correction to those practicing homosexual sin! You're saying it's wrong for people to say something's wrong.

You know that the truth is a stumbling block to some, foolishness to others. If it's not, then it's not the truth. Yes -- say the truth in love, but you need to say the truth. Don't try to be so "gentle" and "caring" that you withold the good news of salvation from those in bondage to homosexual sin....

Your argument strikes me as a "seeker-sensitive" one. You realize, of course, that non-Christians just don't "seek" God? No, they are running the other direction as fast as they can, and the Lord arrests them, calling them, drawing them to himself. Or if you don't like that "running away from God" metaphor, let's go right to Scripture, which tells us that we were "dead in our sins" prior to being saved. That says to me that we were "dead," and not "seeking."

It's important that the truth be spoken to those outside of Christ. The truth of the cross of Christ, spoken lovingly, is a sweet thing to those whom the Lord is calling....

(You say some pretty doctrinally-off things in your last paragraph: "homosexuals ... are covered by Christ's blood just the same as you or I or anyone else is." Whoa! If someone is not "in Christ," then I don't understand how you can say that they are "covered by Christ's blood." I'm not saying there aren't Christians who struggle with homosexuality. I know there are. I've known a few Christian guys who struggled with it. But to say essentially that everyone is "in Christ" is just sloppy doctrine, my friend.)

[longtermmemmory]

I would file the gun to the head as a "for cause"

I do sympathize.

There are too many ex-husbands and ex-wives who are "educated" in feminist views of divorce who see divorce as a badge of honor.