Homosexual marriage II

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Comic Book Guy

Attempting to extrapolate some moral law by postulating that it's absolute truth and authority to the on everything to the letter is crass

Indeed. Almost as crass as constructing a strawman argument based on a small minority of a certain group, then generalizing until it applies to all within the group.

Oh, wait...

[Tessar]

This looks like it's on the verge of devolving into another personal argument. Please don't let that happen.

[BeardofPants]

Simi? Yu makin' up werds agin, simian boi?

[Tessar]

Pffft. Wuteva.... wuman, I do wut I wont! *attempts to throw a gang sign and accidentally deletes several member accounts* Oh... frick... no one panic... I can... I can fix this....

But for your benefit I will go in and change it to real words.

[The Gaffer]

Gaun yersel CBG.

Let he who is without garments of polyester-cotton blended fibres throw the first stone.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

And although I wouldn't disregard from the "holy" aspect myself, I think the Gaffer (unless he was being rhetorical) was fishing for more mundane and pragmatic approaches as to divorce being bad ("bad" as in non-functional rather than decadent).

Yes. It was a genuine question and I am disappointed in the offhand response, to be honest. Some people have been harmed by divorce, though, and it's possibly not a subject that's easy to discuss. However, my theory is that more people are harmed by family situations in which the parents should have got divorced but didn't.

Where I have a real problem is with the suggestion that there should be absolutely no way out, e.g. for the very common situation of domestic violence and abuse.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Personally I don't consider it that important whether gay marriages last longer or shorter than some hypothetical national average. At least not for the sake of the argument of gay marriage's right to be.

Agreed, though of course, if the statistics end up showing that homosexual marriages can be just as lasting as heterosexual ones, I will be at the front of the queue to use em as an argument

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Agreed, though of course, if the statistics end up showing that homosexual marriages can be just as lasting as heterosexual ones, I will be at the front of the queue to use em as an argument

And herein lies a problem, I think.
But indeed, such statistic figures would make a perfectly good argument if someone claimed the contrary, i.e. that gay marriages don't last. However I dare say that anyone who actively supports or discourages homosexual marriages (and anything else, for that matter), do so because of some deeply rooted personal idea - perhaps founded on liberalism, religion etc. A liberal fanatic wouldn't change his view on gay marriage no matter the statistics. A Christian fundamentalist wouldn't either. Which makes such arguments quite meaningless.

I think discussing ideological grounds (rather than the smaller details) is more important, since it at least facilitates understanding between in essence irreconcilable fractions (like pro and anti gay marriage folks).

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

However, my theory is that more people are harmed by family situations in which the parents should have got divorced but didn't.

Heh, more statistics?

[Comic Book Guy]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Indeed. Almost as crass as constructing a strawman argument based on a small minority of a certain group, then generalizing until it applies to all within the group.

Oh, wait...

What?

[GrayMouser]

Gaffer, I certainly agree that there are many times when divorce is the best solution to a bad situation- or just when people amicably agree that they've made a mistake.

But still, nobody goes into a marriage thinking "well, this will be over later anyway" or "we can always get divorced if it doesn't work out".

In that sense I think every divorce is at least an acknowledgement that something went wrong; that things didn't turn out as hoped.

[The Gaffer]

Of course.

I reckon there are people who go into marriage thinking "we can always get divorced" by the way. Many people just do it because it's expected of them.

[GrayMouser]

Then there's the two-hour specials they have in Iran... and a certain number of Vegas matches where she's thinking "How long before the old fogey kicks off from a heart attack?"

[Midge]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Where I have a real problem is with the suggestion that there should be absolutely no way out, e.g. for the very common situation of domestic violence and abuse.

I'm not saying that women should be stupid and stay in a terrible situation. Say, in a few years, my husband began beating me or my children (if we had any then). There is nothing in the Bible that says, "Never get a restraining order". As a matter of fact, in Matthew 18, Jesus Himself says that if a brother will not be reconciled over a wrong, you are to break fellowship with him and treat him as an unbeliever. If my husband became completely unrepentant and relentless in his violence and refused to listen to my reproofs, or the reproofs of his family or friends, or even of our pastor or church discipline, of course I would separate from him. In that case, one of two things would probably happen - he would realize what was happening and actually repent (which is what is hoped), or he would turn farther from his family and find some other woman. In the second case, according to the Bible, I would be justified in divorcing him. I wouldn't have to, but it would be allowable.

The key is to have a goal of reconciliation in mind, not to have a goal of driving the husband to cheat so you can divorce him.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Or the wife, so you can divorce her Italian Style. Marcello Mastroianni, anyone?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Midge

... or he would turn farther from his family and find some other woman. In the second case, according to the Bible, I would be justified in divorcing him. I wouldn't have to, but it would be allowable.

The key is to have a goal of reconciliation in mind, not to have a goal of driving the husband to cheat so you can divorce him.

But if he simply remains a beater not a cheater, you're not allowed to divorce, no?

[GrayMouser]

Congratulations to Iceland's Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdadottir:

Iceland Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir married her long-time partner on Sunday as a new law legalizing homosexual marriages came into force.
Sigurdardottir, in her late 60s, formally married writer Jonina Leosdottir after the couple submitted a demand for their civil union to be transformed into a marriage, the RUV broadcaster said.

Iceland's parliament on June 12 unamimously adopted legislation allowing gay marriage, in a law that came into force on Sunday.

Homosexual couples could previously enter into a civil partnership, but this had not been considered a formal marriage.

She is the country's first openly gay head of government.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Or the wife, so you can divorce her Italian Style. Marcello Mastroianni, anyone?

Ah yes, the good old days before this modern breakdown of morality brought about by feminism and divorce, where murdering a woman was considered a minor crime- after all, she is your property, isn't she?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Oh, yes, the ethical framework of old comedies is quite unabashedly atrocious!

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Ah yes, the good old days before this modern breakdown of morality brought about by feminism and divorce, where murdering a woman was considered a minor crime- after all, she is your property, isn't she?

Quite correct. Indeed its the basis of the "wedding breakfast". All quite true, so i am realiably informed.

If you were not happy with your new wife you had the right to sell her at market... that very noon, as was.... apparently.

Eh.. the good ol' days heh? *starts singing the Dukes of hazard theme tune, and wantonly negleting to bang on any suncream to my neck*

Bet Inked wished he had a time machine...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Midge

The Bible says in Genesis: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Genesis 2:24.

For those of you who do not take the Bible seriously, this won't change your mind. It won't make you believe me, either. However, in marriage, the husband and wife are literally bonded together to be "one flesh" in the sight of God. If you believe this, then divorce is never good. The Bible gives only two provisions for divorce: in the case of infidelity, and only the faithful partner can make this choice, or in the case of an "unequally yoked" marriage, if the non-Christian wants a divorce. The Bible never makes any references to "irreconcilable differences" for Christians. Marriage is a holy ordinance and few people actually believe that.

That's why divorce is a bad thing.

You are reading a bit too much into the good book. Marriage, as a social construct, did not even exist at the time that the Genesis was developed. "Wife" in the above context is simply our best modern conception of the relationships that existed at that point in time.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Oh, yes, the ethical framework of old comedies is quite unabashedly atrocious!

Yes, it sometimes is- not that it's not a great flick- but they do provide insight into the mores of the time and place. Not nearly as good, but along the same lines, is "How to Murder Your Wife", an incredibly misogynistic movie that I enjoyed very much. Jack Lemmon as Stanley and Terry-Thomas as Charles the Valet:

Stanley Ford: Listen, Charles. She's in love so she's never going to agree to a divorce. So we're left with only one choice...murder.
Charles: Murder?
Stanley Ford: Murder.
Charles: ...I say, good show, sir! Absolutely bang on!

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You are reading a bit too much into the good book. Marriage, as a social construct, did not even exist at the time that the Genesis was developed. "Wife" in the above context is simply our best modern conception of the relationships that existed at that point in time.

How so? I think the idea of "marriage"and "husband/wife" are among the oldest and most universal customs humanity has- with cultural variations, of course.

The idea of a man and a woman (or more than one woman, or very very occasionally a woman with more than one man) forming a socially sanctioned bond- in which the relationship is different from that of a concubine, handmaiden or other woman to which the man has sexual access- is found in just about every society.

Commonly, of course, it took the form of an arrangement between two families- and still does in many societies- with (usually) the wishes of the woman and (sometimes) those of the man not being taken into consideration.

Or is that actually the point you are making?