I just wonder

[PurpletheHeathen]

For this post I'm just going to take it as a given that same sex marriage is wrong within Christianity. I'm not saying that is how it is for me, but I know many Christians believe it is, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, and you are who I am speaking to.

Why is this issue, in California your sticking point? I've heard the arguments, that it will harm traditional marriage and children. Okay, but why start with same sex marriage? Why has the church given up on no fault divorce? It seems to me, if traditional marriage is what is right for society, marriages, and families, then as up in arms as the christian community understandably is about same sex marriage, why aren't they fighting to stop the much more damaging no fault divorce?

Currently, in California, if you are a devout Christian, who fully believed your wedding vows when you said "til death do us part" it doesn't matter. Those words are meaningless. If your spouse decides to divorce you, you can do nothing. Even if you know they are only having a temporary problem, like depression, you cannot insist they seek counseling first, you cannot insist they give you just cause your hands are tied, and your vows mean nothing. If your spouse has an affair it might help child custody go your way, but with no fault divorce it doesn't really matter.

Let's just say, ok, same sex couples are not as good parents as traditional families. Okay, but doesn't divorce effect children too? Didn't Jesus say "God hates divorce." Why aren't the proponents of traditional marriage fighting just as hard to keep the words "'til death do us part" as meaningful as they once were. It used to be, to get a divorce, you had to have cause, a reason. Your spouse needed to be shown to have commited adultry, which even Jesus said was just cause, or abusive... something. No longer though, where is this fight, to make the law truly protect the family?

Wasn't traditional marrige given it's death blow with no fault divorce?

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

For me, if I got to vote on a proposition to illegalise divorce I would. Since that opportunity is not available I don't. I am not in a position to decide on such matters (and probably a good thing too knowing how power mad I could get mwahaha).

 

[PurpletheHeathen]

Okay, but why aren't the churchs working toward that, and where were then when no fault divorce became the law of the land? Did I miss something?

 

[FredSmith]

Churches should work to overturn no fault divorce laws. But, in the meantime, that isn't the issue before us.

No matter what you may think of no fault divorce, the difference between no fault divorce and homosexual "marriage" is that no fault divorce doesn't seek to redefine the nature and role of marriage. Homosexual "marriage" does.

 

[PurpletheHeathen]

So it is not in the nature and definition of marraige that it should last a life time?

How is it not the issue before you? Because it already passed? If that is the case will it ever be the issue? There were a lot of years between when no fault became law and before anyone even suggested same sex marriage.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Because as they see it there is no anal sex in a "normal" marriage.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Churches should work to overturn no fault divorce laws. But, in the meantime, that isn't the issue before us.

No matter what you may think of no fault divorce, the difference between no fault divorce and homosexual "marriage" is that no fault divorce doesn't seek to redefine the nature and role of marriage. Homosexual "marriage" does.

The definition of marriage is two people that love and commit to each other and many instances even that is not part of it, I plan to get married for tax breaks and nothing else.

Oh yeah and in the state of CA each person in the household with a valid fishing license can keep one California Mountain Kingsnake (Lampropeltis Zonata Sp.) whether captive bred or wild caught which is about the only reason I can see to logically want to have kids.

 

[FredSmith]

So it is not in the nature and definition of marraige that it should last a life time?

No. While marriage is meant to be for a lifetime, the nature of marriage is that is to be between one man and one woman.

How is it not the issue before you?

As far as I know, it isn't in the courts and isn't on any ballot.

Because it already passed? If that is the case will it ever be the issue? There were a lot of years between when no fault became law and before anyone even suggested same sex marriage.

You seem to be under the impression that because the church was asleep at the switch on one issue, that it must therefore allow all other issues to go by the wayside.

You're absolutely right. We didn't do anything about no fault divorce. We didn't do anything about a lot of things when we should have and now, much to the detriment of our society, they are the norm.

However, just because we were not obedient to stand up against those things does not mean that we should be disobedient about standing up against gay marriage.

If you're disobedient in one area, then you repent. You don't compound the disobedience by then being disobedient in another area.

 

[FredSmith]

The definition of marriage is two people that love and commit to each other and many instances even that is not part of it, I plan to get married for tax breaks and nothing else.

Then you're violating your own definition of marriage, which is hypocritical.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Then you're violating your own definition of marriage, which is hypocritical.

I am ok with that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Churches should work to overturn no fault divorce laws. But, in the meantime, that isn't the issue before us.

No matter what you may think of no fault divorce, the difference between no fault divorce and homosexual "marriage" is that no fault divorce doesn't seek to redefine the nature and role of marriage. Homosexual "marriage" does.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry changes neither the nature nor role of marriage, but rather simply expands the group of people who can marry. The gender pairing of a couple does not determine what it means for them to be married.

 

[FredSmith]

Allowing same-sex couples to marry changes neither the nature nor role of marriage

By saying that marriage can be a man marrying a man, it does attempt to redefine the nature of marriage.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

By saying that marriage is not about creating a social unit for procreation it's changing the definition of marriage.
Marriage was never about companionship, when marriage first got started it was in a world where people lived a lot closer to everyone. It was about the creation and raising of children. Fact is that homosexual sex cannot produce a child.

 

[Beanieboy]

By saying that marriage is not about creating a social unit for procreation it's changing the definition of marriage.
Marriage was never about companionship, when marriage first got started it was in a world where people lived a lot closer to everyone. It was about the creation and raising of children. Fact is that homosexual sex cannot produce a child.

By that definition, married heterosexual couples with no intention of having children, or those unable to have children, are not really married.

And again, it avoids the answer of the OP.

The bible is VERY CLEAR about divorce. If one divorces and remarries, according to the words of Jesus, if it is for reasons other than adultery, the person is living in adultery.

The OP asks, if the bible says that God hates divorce, and Christ echoes that divorcing and remarrying is equal to adultery, why is it that there was a push for Prop 8, which simply denied gays to marry, but no Prop to end divorce?

The dodge has been, "Well, I don't know, but that isn't what Prop 8 was." Not the point. The point is, isn't it hypocritical to vote on Prop 8, which doesn't threaten heterosexual marriage at all, while divorce threatens it by ending it? Why is no one trying to end divorce?

The answer is that having Prop 9, that would make no fault divorce illegal, would threaten heterosexuals, that want to have that out. However, Prop 8 affects others, and so that is why they are quick to vote on that, then simply shrug when called on divorce, and claim that they have no say in what the Prop is for, which is simply deceitful.

Prop's don't just randomly appear on the ballot. They are a result of citizens calling for them to be put on the ballot, signatures signed, etc.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I think that the reason why you see such vocal opposition is that this is an issue where a stand can be made. The votes show that the issue is far from settled.

I think that there is a feeling that once something has been put on the books for a while in America, it's almost impossible to do anything to get rid of it, and there is probably a lot of truth to that. I'd suspect the reason for this is the fact that if politicians want to keep their jobs they can't rise up against anything that is now seen as the norm by many of the people who may vote for them. So you see lip service to ending abortion, or less often to ending no fault divorce, but no one actually makes an effort to do anything about it. But if the laws still haven't been made, then politicians are seen as resisting a radical change which they are more comfortable with and will hurt their careers less.

So the reason why you see people worked up about this instead of going back and fixing everything else that has went wrong is I think because they don't have any faith that they can fix those other things, but they feel like they may be able to stop this at least.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

By that definition, married heterosexual couples with no intention of having children, or those unable to have children, are not really married.

If they are unable but willing it's ok. In the other cases it's not so much that they're not married as they shouldn't be.

The bible is VERY CLEAR about divorce. If one divorces and remarries, according to the words of Jesus, if it is for reasons other than adultery, the person is living in adultery.

The OP asks, if the bible says that God hates divorce, and Christ echoes that divorcing and remarrying is equal to adultery, why is it that there was a push for Prop 8, which simply denied gays to marry, but no Prop to end divorce?

If I had the chance I would vote to end both divorce and homosexual marriage. It's not my fault that I don't (in fact being British I have neither choice).

The dodge has been, "Well, I don't know, but that isn't what Prop 8 was." Not the point. The point is, isn't it hypocritical to vote on Prop 8, which doesn't threaten heterosexual marriage at all, while divorce threatens it by ending it? Why is no one trying to end divorce?

Everything I would do against homosexual marriage I would do against divorce. In both cases I do not believe it is my place to actively campaign (of course I express my opinion when I can) but I have a vote and must use it according to my convictions when it is possible.

The answer is that having Prop 9, that would make no fault divorce illegal, would threaten heterosexuals, that want to have that out. However, Prop 8 affects others, and so that is why they are quick to vote on that, then simply shrug when called on divorce, and claim that they have no say in what the Prop is for, which is simply deceitful.

Prop's don't just randomly appear on the ballot. They are a result of citizens calling for them to be put on the ballot, signatures signed, etc.

As a non american I did not know this.
If presented with a petition against divorce I'd sign it.

 

[Beanieboy]

The problem is that the US is right next to Canada. Gays were allowed to marry, and all the claims that men are going to marry their dog, or their sister, make most Canadians here, seeing the over religious, hysterical Christians that look like Henny Pennys, telling everyone that fire will fall from the sky like in S&G, "what's wrong with Americans?"

I shrug, and say, "We're a relatively new country. Do you have a son or daughter that's about 14 or 15? You know how they think there is NOTHING that you can teach them, because they know everything? You know how they think that if they don't get that XBox, or new iPod, they world is going to cave in? Yeah. That."

In the eyes of Torontonians, the States looks backwards, where they try to argue that Health Care isn't a necessity, and all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. The excused used (it will hurt marriage!) hasn't hurt marriage in Canada. The excuse "men will marry their sisters!" makes them wonder if these Americans think the only think preventing them from doing so is the law, which is creepy enough. Yet, there is no Brother-Sister love groups protesting in the street. And the Man-Dog love group? Seriously?

It's embarrassing.

 

[Beanieboy]

If they are unable but willing it's ok. In the other cases it's not so much that they're not married as they shouldn't be.

What's you Prop for next year: Couples without kids will have their marriages annulled?"

No one says, "Sally, will you be the mother of my children?"
They say, "I love you, and want to live my life with you."

If you voted Yes, then you voted against you own definition: That a marriage is between one man and one woman who reproduce children.
So you are redefining it now, and negating what you voted for.

 

[gwenmead]

By saying that marriage can be a man marrying a man, it does attempt to redefine the nature of marriage.

Marrying for love instead of consolidation of family wealth also redefined the nature of marriage. So did allowing women property and inheritance rights independent of their husbands. So did the shift from polygamy to monogamy. So did the elimination of marriage by capture. But I don't recall ever seeing anyone object to those redefinitions.

So is it really the redefinition per se that's upsetting? Or just the idea of redefining it to include same-sex couples?

And are we talking "marriage" as it is now, in modern Western cultures, or are we talking how it's been over time, or how it is in other cultures around the world?

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

What's you Prop for next year: Couples without kids will have their marriages annulled?"

No they might not have children for perfectly innocent reasons.

No one says, "Sally, will you be the mother of my children?"
They say, "I love you, and want to live my life with you."

I asked my dad for an arranged marriage, I am wary of love coming before the commitment. I think it should be commitment first, then nurture feelings for one another, that way you can be sure not to pick someone simply based on an emotional high. I have weird views I know that. Guess what, one weirdo like me with one vote can't do anything unless other people agree on whatever I vote for. Thank God for that (truly!).

If you voted Yes, then you voted against you own definition: That a marriage is between one man and one woman who reproduce children.
So you are redefining it now, and negating what you voted for.

I am British, I can't vote on this. However if I had been able to vote for it, the fact that it was an incomplete definition (btw not "who reproduce" but "the primary purpose of which is procreation and rearing of children" ) doesn't mean I shouldn't vote to make it more precise than the prior definition.