if one is unhappy and things are done and cannot be undone and there is no love, divorce. if you aren't Christian or don't want to get married in this fashion then don't. that's my opinion on the matter, I believe people should have misery just like everyone else, either they choose marriage, divorce or become individuals who choose to live together, just create a will and change it according to the times and set of the relationship and it's all good.
Why would Christians oppose non-Christian marriages? Sure, God invented marriage, (well, technically speaking, He invented sex, and we just associated it with marriage), but this was something He intended for all of man, not just Christians.
I do agree that divorce should be looked down upon, specifically in the church. God only allowed it in the Bible because we were too self-absorbed, according to Jesus.
If God invented marriage, wouldn't this mean that only Christians should get married?
Sooo, were the people in Bible Christians?
Divorce is supposed to be looked down upon, so shouldn't no-fault divorce be outlawed? So far, divorce is frown upon because Marriage is suppose to mean death due us part. I feel that no one takes marriage seriously. But if theres a marriage that is conflicting an issue with God or something, thats a time to get divorce. Other then that, I don't know anything else about marriage.
Yes. No-fault divorce should not be legally recognized.
If you were around when no-faults were introduced, you would see a lot of protesting. At that time they claimed that it was a logical fallacy to claim no-fault divorces would erode the sanctity of marriage and lead to all kinds of "whim" marriages. Meanwhile, history proved those people wrong and in a legal sense, marriage is a shell of what it used to be. This is cause for celebration of the people who really didn't value marriage anyway and see it as an archaic practice.
Also, if you ever really went to a protestant church, most of the topics with adults revolve around the marriage covenant and what we personally need to do in order to glorify God through our marriages. As much hype and liberal rantings about homosexuality and abortions, it really is not a main point of discussion among Christian protestants and their teachings through the church. It gets about as much play as it does in scripture.
On a personal note, it is a sad state of our current times when we are, as a people, ok with marriage being a whim or momentary thing that can change based on temporary feelings. Divorce is horrible, especially when children are involved. The impacts to the child are severe. And as a society at large, we accept it as normal and move on to other despicable desires.
Did you read my A vs. B scenario about the definition of marriage as it regards to being a religious concept or a state granted contract?
Government CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT have a legal opinion on what [a] church decrees. It is a violation of the US's Free Exercise Clause. (Having Under God is also a violation of the US's free exercise clause as it applies only to Yahweh based religions. It also wasn't there to begin with until 1953.)
So my original statement applies: marriage is a religious ceremony, which the state should take no interest in, and can show no favoritism in, OR marriage is a state sanctioned contract that the church can have no input in defining.
And to prevent you from using the 'slippery slope argument' Consider this.
You cannot make contracts with Minors (including things that have nothing to do with marriage like concepts, like buying cars.) You cannot make contracts with Animals.
Doll don't bother with Matt he IS the angry one (chuckles) would just like to point out that mawwage in the Babylonian period (1792- 1752 BC) was a simple matter of property contracting, the two parties stipulated what of their wealth was common, the Aakadians before the Babylonians were even less restrictive in the conduct of their social relationships. *shrug* wtf does a government really need to intrude beyond that level of interest in human affairs?