« Where's the Marriage Equality for Throuples? | Main | What Is a Simple Tactic You Can Use with the Topic of Evolution? »

April 26, 2014


Thank you for adding to the discourse. One can hearken to the slippery slope arguments of yesteryear, but they are being fulfilled while we watch. Marriage is about "love". Marry who you "love" = Same Sex Marriage = Marry multiple partners = Marry minors = Marry preteens. The problem is "the heart wants what the heart wants". And the heart of man is broken. Only One solution. Jesus Christ.

Proverbs 14:12 ASV
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; But the end thereof are the ways of death.
The most disturbing in my eyes is that this is a battle of religions and government is promoting the side of the religion that is attacking Christianity. Must hedge, defend, and never surrender!

There is a saying that the ones who break are the ones obligated to fix.

It's been a generation, and it has become apparent that these top-notch breakers are less-than-adequate repair persons.

It is time to question the credentials of these marriage "experts." And a good starting point is the false statement that marriage is about love. Love is a wide open concept (three distinct Greek words are used in the NT to differentiate between the varieties). What is the glue to good marriages is also the main components of friendship and companionship. Oh yes, also infatuation, whatever you wish to make of that.

Those who are against SSM are strong on their definitions.

Excellent point, Kent McD!

100% agree with this article. This "no-fault" culture is something that's got to be addressed as well.

I just sat through an orientation meeting, and it included a safety portion on what to do if you are injured on the job. While I'm sure a majority of injuries occur as the result of pure accident, the issue was couched in terms of "no-fault". In other words, a worker could be doing something totally contrary to common sense and the rules of the job, and when they get injured, it's not their fault! Talk about taking an incentive away from doing your best at your job...

I think we're so afraid of blame because it points out exactly what we want to cover up, our depravity as mankind. Further, "no-fault" denies the reality that there are consequences to our actions. "I should be allowed to do whatever makes me happy and I shouldn't have to suffer any bad consequences because of it..."

You see it with worker's comp, you see it with marriage, and you see it, sad to say, with HIV/AIDS. I'm pretty sure there is a preventative cure, and involves keeping ourselves chaste outside of marriage. But we don't want to hear that. We want to hear "Have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want, and if you get an STD or HIV/AIDS, we'll just make a big PR campaign about how you shouldn't be mistreated because of that, give you a bunch of drugs that only forestall the inevitable, but we'll never really address the issue that caused this in the first place, which is wanton immorality."

Would you (anybody against no-fault divorce) legislate any difference between contested and uncontested cases?

If you would not recognize any difference legally, please explain whether and why you would or would not ban the dissolution of other contracts by mutual agreement.

I have mixed feelings about no fault divorce. On the one hand, I do think it destabilizes families and has caused a lot of disaster for kids. And it lessens the value we put on commitment.

On the other hand, I think there are some good reasons for wanting a no fault divorce. Let's say, for example, that your wife cheats on you. Well, to get a fault divorce, you've got to make her adultery public information, and if you've got kids, you might not want to do that because she's the mother of your kids.

And, like Melinda said, there are cases where you can't prove fault, but for your own safety you need to get out of the situation anyway.

Glad to see there are still people out there who think that immorality causes AIDS. Go Christianity.

While no-fault divorce may have provided the tipping-point toward our current state of affairs - after all, this is the outcome that what we should have expected from a non-binding legal agreement that either party to the "contract" can break at any time for any reason - the real confusion about marriage occurred when civil marriage supplanted the sacrament of matrimony. Everything concerning what Christians, and Western Civilization, believe and uphold about matrimony deteriorated from there . . . that is the origin.

"Glad to see there are still people out there who think that immorality causes AIDS. Go Christianity."

Straw Man.

Actually the argument is that the actions are more likely to lead to that outcome, therefore should be avoided. Christianity simply adds a warning that the consequences may not be limited temporally.

Trent, MUCH more likely to lead to that outcome. There is virtually no incidence of AIDS among, monogamous, heterosexual married adults. The rate of AIDS among homosexual men is the highest for any sexual demographic group. Additionally, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) amoung young people 15-24 are much higher today than they were a generation or two ago. Today, one in four teenage girls in the US has an STD, according the the Centers for Disease Control. Culturally-induced sexual liberation has had direct health consequences.

You're right . . . immorality doesn't cause AIDs or other STDs. But it sure is much more likely to result in them.

> Glad to see there are still people out there who think
> that immorality causes AIDS.

So... what's YOUR hypothesis as to the spread of AIDS?


I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark, and guess that HIV causes AIDS. But, it's just a guess. I suppose one would have to gather evidence if one wanted to really know for sure.

Re TomD: who said,"the real confusion about marriage occurred when civil marriage supplanted the sacrament of matrimony."

The Roman Catholic sacrament came about long after Bible times and civil or Jewish marriages were the norm. Nowhere does the Bible require folks married by the State to remarry in a church. This would also support that civil marriage contracts issued by the State are valid and binding in God's sight.

However, when the Roman Catholic Church "Annuls" a marriage, IT is not valid, and they are usurping the State's authority.

I'm not a regular on chat boards, but I think Ben just "owned" Mike.

...but HIV doesn't just drop out of thin air. One acquires it through certain actions. AIDS does not spread on its own. So, while HIV "causes" AIDS it is most likely acquired through unnatural acts.

"So, while HIV "causes" AIDS it is most likely acquired through unnatural acts."

Lesbians have the lowest rate of HIV. In Africa, HIV is spread primarily through heterosexual contact.

Whatever one's orientation, if you don't trust someone sufficiently to NOT have to wear a condom, perhaps you shouldn't be sleeping with them in the first place.

That being said, people have contracted HIV through unfaithful partners. You can't always make assumptions about how it was acquired.

"Marriage is not about love. It was, in part, about making stable families to raise the next generation."

I have no problem with making divorce more difficult if there are children are involved (depending on the situation). Keep in mind that there are marriages where the children would be better off without one of the parents there, particularly if there is serious substance or physical abuse going on.

Re: dave "Nowhere does the Bible require folks married by the State to remarry in a church. This would also support that civil marriage contracts issued by the State are valid and binding in God's sight." Where to start?

Civil marriage, marriage performed (and dissolved) by a government official, wasn't practiced within Christian society until after the Reformation. Until that time, the sacrament of matrimony WAS marriage. This is why Henry VIII was "stuck" with the pronouncement from Rome with regards to his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon . . . at that time there was no alternative for a Christian to the existing religious perspective on marriage, so Henry VIII simply created one.

It's an odd and very modern perspective to state that the Church's beliefs and actions with regards to marriage "usurp[ing] the State's authority," as if, from a Christian perspective, the State's recognition of marriage somehow trumps the religious status. But in reality, civil marriage in the modern era HAS supplanted the sacrament of matrimony, even for many Christians, and certainly within the legal realm. This situation was initiated at the Reformation through the de-sacramentation of Matrimony.

@James Bradshaw: Not all unnatural, immoral sexual acts spread AIDS, but AIDS is overwhelmingly spread by immoral sexual acts. In the United States, monogamous, heterosexual married adults (the only moral sex from a Christian perspective) have almost no incidence of AIDS. Whatever is occurring with AIDS in Africa, it must involve some violation of the monogamous, heterosexual, married adult profile.

@ St. Simon: "Ben just 'owned' Mike?"

Ben didn't even address Mike's question. Spreads AIDS, not causes AIDS. We all know HIV causes AIDS. Why does it spread, or, more precisely, what are the specific acts that result in the highest rates of transmission of HIV to an uninfected person?

Ben's non-answer was just snark. Typical agitator tactic. I don't feel pwned.

@ TomD: “The first inclusion of marriage among the seven sacraments of the New Law by the Church’s Magisterium occurred at the Council of Verona in 1184” http://www.catholicwealdstone.org/wordpress/?p=1236

Again, your “sacrament” of marriage came along much later than you suggest.

In Scripture, Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles (Romans, Greeks, etc). He had plenty to say about marriage. He recognized their marriages as being valid and binding.

Scripture also warns about divorce and remarriage as being adultery. Your “annulment” doctrine doesn't square with this.

Yeah, I'm not trying to pwn anyone. Never have. I just don't feel like engaging such disgusting views on a serious level. Maybe some other time I will, but not right now.


No comment on divorce here.


So you are going to teach your own children to have unprotected, casual, anonymous, multi-partner sex?

If you say yes, then I don't believe you. Because we all know you know.

If you say no, then you realize the seriousness of all sorts of outcomes stemming from sexual activity, many robustly beautiful, many undeniably dangerous or fatal.

This line/diversion has nothing to do with divorce, it has to do with the varied outcomes stemming from sexual activity.

Many are undeniably beautiful.

As you seem to infer that those undeniably dangerous, or fatal, outcomes are fantasy, I'm looking forward to your answer to my question regarding what to teach the child.

You seem to be promoting the idea that there is no conduit of danger here; I wonder, do you post such things on your own webpage?

I'd like to see what you say about HIV and sexual conduits on your own webpage.

Can you show us?

Again, you seem to be foisting the idea that HIV/Sex links are a fantasy.

Can we find this on your webpage?

Somewhere along the line, Ben, people's risks/lives have to matter more than your own private animosity. Loving one's enemy is quite hard, but, foisting the idea that there are no links to serious risk here is irresponsible of you.

So again, on your webpage..... fatality.... HIV.... teaching children....


The only reason I want to see such on your own webpage is simply because, given that you don't mind going to someone else's webpage and chastising the biological principle of sexual conduits linking sexual activity with HIV, I was wanting to see the same biological principle of sexual conduits chastised on your own webpage. Actually, I'd prefer to see neither, as such is just irresponsible. Don't worry. I'm not good at loving my enemy either. But then, that innate worth looms large.


"Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner. Similarly, if condoms are not used correctly, the protective effect may be diminished even when they are used consistently. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized."


God hates divorce.

But inside of our privation, our fragmentation, He regulates it (in the OT Law), and in the NT Paul's few exceptions show us it is not absolute. In the next life we apparently won't marry (each other at least).

There is no "cure" for sin outside of God's Means/Ends, which are nothing less than Himself.

Jesus and Paul both show us such.

The Law even provided for remarriage, and such Law was Power's restraint of death, rather than the cure thereof.

The head which wears the crown must be the first to die. Monsters devouring wives and children find no claim to those who belong to Immutable Love. Not all marriages are willed by God. The exceptions are, of course, few.

Side note:

God, Immutable Love, hates divorce.... and slavery... and violence... and Mankind's fragmentations in all its forms.

The skeptics who view the OT through their cherry-picked one-verse theologies reveal a lack of intellectual effort. That which can do no more than restrain Death is not That which will bring Life.

God makes of Himself our Means and our Ends. After all, what, short of All-Sufficiency, can pour out, and fill up, In-Sufficiency with All-Sufficiency in all vectors?

@ scbrownlhrm,

The remarriage of divorced persons, involving them in adultery, is a New Testament teaching that I am referring to. I was pointing out that the Roman Catholic "annulment" doctrine sets the stage for divorced people to commit adultery should they remarry. Perhaps another damnable heresy we are cautioned against?

David I agree in that the "established" "rule" is powerless as it presumes an authority no one has, and, its brush is far, far wider than the few exceptions we (do) see in scripture. Also, what sins may lay in our past are upon Grace's in-pouring non-entity. I have seen families ripped apart by Legalists ridiculing or condemning a now sane person into divorcing who she married ten years after Christ that she may go and find the then-thirty year old pimp who married her at her darkened hour of 18 to pull her further into his "trade".

Where Grace had delivered, the "church" had condemned.

Grace is we-know-not-what.

God, however, knows. And His Grace out-performs Time and Law and Circumstance.

The more we know love, and value love, the more we will become like love, and the end result will be unbreakable marriages woven in oneness. God's, Love's, Eternally Sacrificed Self is found at love's end.

How He loves us, His beloved!

Marriage today is in its loveless state because love's inverse has risen to our heart's throne.

It is an oxymoron to declare today's brand of marriage as based on love.

All that is Self, all that is Other, all which these beget within Us, within E Pluribus Unum, is Love's Triune.

Marriage today is all that is Self ripped out of love's Whole and by privation swollen to madness in painful fragmentation.

It is Mankind's fall from the Image of Immutable Love all over again.

Scripture points to Marriage as a guide to what Actuality Is:

We are ever hopeful both for mankind and for the whole arena of marriage for we are pointed to marriage itself by God Himself as a guide as to just what “Actuality Is”, as a guide to just what is going on. In Marriage we find the Image of Man’s final Good, that of Immutable Love’s Image. In Marriage, in God, we find the necessarily interpersonal in all that is Being, in all that is Knowing, and in all that is Motion as all that is Self-Other-Us ceaselessly flows in Him as we find Love’s Eternally Sacrificed Self in delight timelessly pouring-out for the Beloved even as we find in Him Love’s Beloved Other timelessly filling-up by such sacrifice as in reciprocity These Living Waters unceasingly Beget unity’s singular Us as in Him we find Love’s effusively Triune and thoroughly Singular Self-Other-Us in the immutable topography of Love’s E Pluribus Unum, of Actuality’s A-to-Z.

The husband is to love his wife along these vectors, wherein we find that motion of, that shout of, “Thine and not Mine, Other and not Self, You and not I”. As Christ loves us, let us love one another. Immutable Love calls husbands and wives to acquiesce one to another and in such motions we find that God, that is to say, that All-Sufficiency pours out, is Himself debased, seeks not His Own but instead His Beloved Other, and Man, that is to say, and In-Sufficiency finds himself thereby filled up, and is therein Glorified and in all vectors such that should he look above his head or beneath his feet or within his chest he finds, in all regressions, All-Sufficiency Himself. Man-In-God. God-In-Man. Incarnation’s inescapable geography of amalgamation, of Timelessness and Time, of Word and Corporeal.

We are called the Bride of Christ and we are pointed to – Marriage – for a window into just what is going on, into just what Immutable Love is up to within our fractured Time and Physicality, into just what is Actuality’s A-to-Z.

Dave, as just one example, Saint Augustine, in 410AD in his writing "On the Good of Marriage" repeatedly uses the word sacrament with relation to marriage. St. John Chrysostom also referred to "It [wedding/marriage] is a sacrament, a mystery, a model of the Church of Christ." The Orthodox Church also views marriage as a sacrament. The idea that early Christianity held marriage as a sacrament is not some later medieval "invention," as you implied. It's more complicated and historically nuanced than that.

I suggest you read a little Church history and, especially the theological writings from the early Church Fathers. The proper interpretation of Scripture with regard to marriage did not begin in 1517A.D. Augustine and Chrysostom are a good place to start.

@ TomD; No matter where you place the sacrament of marriage in time, or even if there is such a thing, it doesn't matter. It still remains that pagan marriages of far greater number, were recognized as binding, in the Apostle Paul's dialog with non Jewish converts.

The comments to this entry are closed.