If getting married after a divorce is sinful...

[loriersea]

The New Testament makes it pretty clear that getting a divorce (with the possible exception of getting one after your partner commits adultery, depending on how you interpret things) is sinful, and that getting remarried after a divorce is committing adultery.

As such, why aren't Christians in the United States fighting to make marriage between two divorced people (again, with the possible exception of divorce after adultery by the other partner) illegal? Why aren't they fighting to make sure that those couples are not entitled to the same legal rights as couples who are married in a way God approves of?

There are far, far more people in that situation (being married after a divorce for a reason other than adultery) than there are people in same-sex relationships. This is a far, far more rampant sin (assuming you see same-sex relationships as sinful, but this is addressed to people who do).

So shouldn't making marriage illegal between two divorced people be far more important than fight gay marriage?

 

[Vedant]

It's sad that marriage gets treated as lightly as it does.

 

[Vedant]

From a social stigma perspective, marriage between two divorced people isn't as obscene as gay marriage. Another difference that I see is that gay is a lifestyle outside of the norm. Getting divorced and remarried happens at specific points and isn't thought of as some kind of continual process of sinning, although there are cases of people getting divorced and remarried several times over, which would seem akin to having a lifestyle of sin. Of course, everyone, married, gay, or whatever has his or her own lifestyle of sin. However, people don't seem to equate their lives with the lives of others this way.

 

[SimplyMe]

From a social stigma perspective, marriage between two divorced people isn't as obscene as gay marriage. Another difference that I see is that gay is a lifestyle outside of the norm. Getting divorced and remarried happens at specific points and isn't thought of as some kind of continual process of sinning, although there are cases of people getting divorced and remarried several times over, which would seem akin to having a lifestyle of sin. Of course, everyone, married, gay, or whatever has his or her own lifestyle of sin. However, people don't seem to equate their lives with the lives of others this way.

Yes, but part of the point some Christian's try to make is that societal norms don't matter when talking about sin. The fact is, anytime a divorced person has sex (unless the divorce was for adultery) it is adultery per Christ's words. Just as homosexuals need to be celibate, at least by those that feel all homosexuality is wrong, a divorced person would also need to remain totally celebate or he/she is simply committing adultery again.

 

[loriersea]

Getting divorced and remarried happens at specific points and isn't thought of as some kind of continual process of sinning,

But if the post-divorce relationship is adulterous, then it IS a relationship of continual sin.

 

[Johnnz]

What Jesus taught about divorce & remarriage has been somewhat distorted, which is very unfortunate. Jesus both upheld God's original intention for marriage, and attacked the specious arrangements of the liberals of his day. But he was not condeming everyone who remarried for good reasons outside of the two obvious terminations for marriage - death and adultery.

John
NZ

 

[Stinker]

The sin of unscriptural marriage between a man & woman is absolutely ignored by Christians. All they are fed is of how wrong is the marriage between couples of the same sex.

To maintain that marriage is defined by the Bible, yet not obey all it has to say regarding this institution, and point the finger at homosexual marriage, is to practice hypocrisy.

 

[loriersea]

What Jesus taught about divorce & remarriage has been somewhat distorted, which is very unfortunate. Jesus both upheld God's original intention for marriage, and attacked the specious arrangements of the liberals of his day. But he was not condeming everyone who remarried for good reasons outside of the two obvious terminations for marriage - death and adultery.

John
NZ

To claim the Pharisees were liberals is absurd.

 

[Johnnz]

To claim the Pharisees were liberals is absurd.

There were two schools of rabbibical thought in NT times. One took a pretty hard line about divorce, the other was extremely tolerant. Jesus took issue with the latter group.

John
NZ

 

[Athene]

There were two schools of rabbibical thought in NT times. One took a pretty hard line about divorce, the other was extremely tolerant. Jesus took issue with the latter group.

John
NZ

And you know this how?

 

[""]

There were two schools of rabbibical thought in NT times. One took a pretty hard line about divorce, the other was extremely tolerant. Jesus took issue with the latter group.

John
NZ

And you know this how?

I thought you both might find this link interesting.

http://www.marriagedivorce.com/rudvin.pdf

Read it and let me know what you think. That goes for anybody else interested in discussing it. I just found it this evening, and I'm still thinking about it.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

You are quite correct that remarriage after illegitimate divorce is adultery...and the reason that the majority of the Christian right abhor homosexual unions but care little about remarriage is that, as heterosexuals, they are then able to impose their beliefs on other people without affecting themselves being able to do whatever they want. Since they do however divorce and remarry at a high rate, it is easier for them to ignore that part of Scripture and go on in sin.

 

[loriersea]

I thought you both might find this link interesting.

http://www.marriagedivorce.com/rudvin.pdf

Read it and let me know what you think. That goes for anybody else interested in discussing it. I just found it this evening, and I'm still thinking about it.

Your understandings of "tolerant" and "liberal" are very skewed here.

The Pharisees did NOT take a liberal view of divorce; they took a patriarchal view of it. They allowed a male to divorce a female for virtually any reason they wanted, but a female was NEVER allowed to divorce a male. That isn't liberal; it's patriarchal. See also the instance of the adulterous woman, but NOT the male, being brought in for a stoning. Would you argue that the Pharisees were liberal in that instance because they did not think the adulterous man should be stoned? Obviously not. Again, their actions were patriarchal, and Jesus' actions disrupted their way of doing things.

Jesus was no doubt aware of the ill effects this had on women, who were left destitute after a divorce. His prohibition on divorce served to eliminate a discriminatory system, that allowed men to trample on the rights of their wife (although obviously "rights" for women wasn't a term anyone would have understood at the time).

 

[MethodMan]

The New Testament makes it pretty clear that getting a divorce (with the possible exception of getting one after your partner commits adultery, depending on how you interpret things) is sinful, and that getting remarried after a divorce is committing adultery.

Are you under the Law of Moses or the Grace of God?

As such, why aren't Christians in the United States fighting to make marriage between two divorced people (again, with the possible exception of divorce after adultery by the other partner) illegal? Why aren't they fighting to make sure that those couples are not entitled to the same legal rights as couples who are married in a way God approves of?

There are far, far more people in that situation (being married after a divorce for a reason other than adultery) than there are people in same-sex relationships. This is a far, far more rampant sin (assuming you see same-sex relationships as sinful, but this is addressed to people who do).

So shouldn't making marriage illegal between two divorced people be far more important than fight gay marriage?

IMHO, marriage is taken too lightly in the US and to many people fail to undersatnd what the Mairriage convenant is really about.

Your argument is that of the judgementalists that want you to look past their sin and look at how many people are doing something else that is considered bad. Does so many people doing the divorce thing make the other act righteous?

 

[holyorders]

subscribe

 

[loriersea]

Are you under the Law of Moses or the Grace of God?

Are gay and lesbian people under the Law of Moses or the Grace of God?

Your argument is that of the judgementalists that want you to look past their sin and look at how many people are doing something else that is considered bad. Does so many people doing the divorce thing make the other act righteous?

I'm not sure what this means. The question I'm asking is, why are Christians jumping all over same-sex relationships as destroying this country, when in fact only about 1.5-3% of the population is gay or lesbian, and yet don't seem to have any real moral problem--and certainly no legal problem--with people getting divorces for any reason, and then being legally allowed to remarry? I would appreciate if you'd answer that question.

 

[MethodMan]

Are gay and lesbian people under the Law of Moses or the Grace of God?

I don't know, do you?

I'm not sure what this means.

I shop lift a $.50 pen and you steel $1000 out of an open cash register when no one is looking. Legally, you are in much deeper trouble than I am if we get caught and in reality we are both guilty of theft.

The question I'm asking is, why are Christians jumping all over same-sex relationships as destroying this country, when in fact only about 1.5-3% of the population is gay or lesbian, and yet don't seem to have any real moral problem--and certainly no legal problem--with people getting divorces for any reason, and then being legally allowed to remarry? I would appreciate if you'd answer that question.

I will when you tell me why gay folks want to be married.

 

[wblastyn]

I will when you tell me why gay folks want to be married.

So they can have the legal benefits of marriage, just like heterosexuals? IOW, so they can be considered equal?

 

[MethodMan]

So they can have the legal benefits of marriage, just like heterosexuals? IOW, so they can be considered equal?

So you now admit it has nothing to do with rights?

 

[Laura]

So you now admit it has nothing to do with rights?

It has everything to do with rights! Why should one part of the country be discriminated against because Christians don't like gay people? The last time I checked, we are not a theocracy, no matter how hard Bush is trying to change that.