Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 20, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 65

No fault divorce and non-Christian marriages

:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
People oppose gay marriage vehemently because 'Marriage is sacred!' 'God invented marriage!'.

If God invented marriage, wouldn't this mean that only Christians should get married? Divorce is supposed to be looked down upon, so shouldn't no-fault divorce be outlawed?

This leads me to wonder why I never see anyone trying to protest non-Christian marriages nor no-fault divorce, yet, according to their idea of marriage, both of these things are bad things.

Do you oppose no fault divorce? Non-Christian marriage?
Do you think it's hypocritical to oppose one/some of these, but not all of them?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconangelxxuan:
angelxxuan Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Student General Artist
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.
Reply
:iconkillianseraphim:
KillianSeraphim Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Student General Artist
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.
Reply
:iconnarutokunobessed:
narutokunobessed Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Student General Artist
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.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
All Abrahamic religions believe that they are right, and that the others are wrong, so, what I said still counts :shrug:
Reply
:iconnarutokunobessed:
narutokunobessed Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Student General Artist
If God invented marriage, wouldn't this mean that only Christians should get married?

Not for that question really. Not all abrahimic religions are chrisitan.
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Homosexual marriage as an issue will be in the same place as No-fault divorce in a few decades. Don`t worry.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconkalinka-shadows:
Kalinka-Shadows Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconamanda-graham:
Amanda-Graham Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Professional Writer
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?

#justsayin @ MattTheMuddled
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012
How am I angry? Because I was asked for my opinion and I happen to honor marriage?
Reply
:iconamanda-graham:
Amanda-Graham Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Professional Writer
no because you offer insult when none was neccessary *shrug*
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012
What insult?
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
I never read your post in this thread. Nor do I ever really find them informative.
Reply
:iconkalinka-shadows:
Kalinka-Shadows Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
Alright then.
Reply
:iconsaintartaud:
saintartaud Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Professional General Artist
They don't care because it at least conforms to their idea of what a "natural" or "proper" pairing should entail.

Actually, the more conservative Christians do care about no-fault divorce and oppose such legislation, but again, I think you get the more vocal opposition to same-sex marriage because it looks less like what people think of when they think of marriage.
Reply
:iconsapphire-ashesx:
Sapphire-Ashesx Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
Most of your threads are about ignorant Christians and Anti-gay people. It used to be one of my greatest pet peeves as well. :0
Reply
:iconkalinka-shadows:
Kalinka-Shadows Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
In the past, Christians HAVE opposed divorce. This is why Henry the 8th beheaded his wife. The Church's word was law back then.

In Archaic Societies:
Abrahamic Religion favored Polyandry. This is still true of Islam.
Abrahamic Religion considered women and children to be considered property. This is still true of Islam.
Marriage was considered a business arrangement to strengthen power.

If Yahweh doesn't exist, then the definition of marriage changes just as much for Heterosexuals as it does for Homosexuals. In Christianity, and other religions similar to it, Marriage is a 'sacrement'. But if you take away the religious reason, what is left is a voluntary contract law between two adults.

Marriage just becomes 'a Contract' that is enforced by courts like other contracts. In fact the only reason it's call marriage is to favor Christian tradition. To that end, it could be said that Government/The State should get out of the Marriage Contract business entirely, because we can't have two definitions for what marriage is vs. is not. People is the definition of Marriage between a Man and a Woman? That's the wrong question. A better question is this:

Is Marriage:

A. A Contract enforced by the State, between two adults.
B. A Sacrament created by the religion, between two adults?

If A is correct, then Ministers have no place conducting Weddings, Judges should. (In my case a Judge did.) The religious ceremony can still take place. Separately, and without any legal force, as just a form of celebration.

If B is correct, then the state Marriage licenses have to be renamed something like 'civil partnership contracts' for both Heterosexual couples and Homosexual couples. But this means that the word marriage is as Churches define it again. So Churches can 'bar' Homosexual weddings, but that doesn't really mean anything. Because being married has no legal affect on anything any longer. Partnership agreements such as property, inheritance, taxation, insurance benefits, and everything due to the state domestic partnership contract.

Under senario A, Marriage is completely ceded to the state, from the Church. Under Scenario B, Marriage is completely ceded from the state to the church, but the definition of marriage becomes completely hollow because it has no legal force or penalty. Because this state sanction contract law took it's place.
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
In the past, Christians HAVE opposed divorce. This is why Henry the 8th beheaded his wife. The Church's word was law back then.

What?

Henry VIII had 6 wives over his lifetime: "Divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived." He successfully obtained an annulment in his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon, but not before Catherine gave birth to a daughter, Mary. Anne Boleyn had her head cut off -- she was said to have been having an affair, and was therefore convicted of High Treason -- but not before giving birth to a daughter, Elizabeth. She was probably not guilty, but had failed to produce a son, as after Elizabeth there were 3 miscarriages, and Henry's eye was turning elsewhere. His third wife was Jane Seymour, who died of natural causes. It was from complications of chilbirth when her son Edward was born. His fourth wife was Anne of Cleves, who did nothing wrong other than being unappealing when he finally met her in person. He obtained an annulment against her too, but she remained loyal to him the rest of her life and he treated her as an honored sister. His fifth wife was Catherine Howard, who was a flirtatious young thing. The King was almost as infuriated to discover she had been engaged to someone else before she got engaged to him, as he was to find she'd cheated on him after their marriage too. She ended up losing her head. His sixth wife, Catherine Parr, took care of him as his health declined and survived him.

Jane Seymour's son Edward became King Edward VI and died at age 15 having reigned 6 years. Catherine of Aragon's daughter became Queen Mary I, "Bloody Mary", who made a lot of Protestant martyrs trying to return England to Catholicism. Anne Boleyn's daughter Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth I, who made a rather good job of it. But by then, the Church's word was the same as the King's word. Henry had split from Rome when the Pope denied him an annulment against Catherine of Aragon. At that point, he was the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and if he wanted an annulment he got an annulment.

You're right that this was technically not the same as a divorce, but the point is that the Church had nothing to do with the reason the two executed ex-wives lost their heads.

In fact the only reason it's call marriage is to favor Christian tradition.

That's not true. Marriage is marriage the world over, Christian or not. It's a near-universal human custom. HOWEVER, you're correct that its basic form is a contract, and there's no good rational non-religious reason to limit which two people might be allowed to enter into a contract.

It's useless to talk about this as purely theoretical, because there are countries in Europe where the ONLY legal marriage is a civil marriage. (Denmark, for instance.) If you need a sacramental marriage for religious reasons, you go get one after the civil marriage has been concluded. The creation of the legal marital unit is strictly a state matter. You have only to look at those countries to see that such a system works.
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
The only thing I ever remember about the guy was his obsession with people called Catherine or Anne.

Funnily the one he supposedly loved the most had neither of these names.
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Coincidence, I'm sure, just like he was the 8th king named Henry. "Catherine" was a very common name at the time.
Reply
:iconkalinka-shadows:
Kalinka-Shadows Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
I think I may have worded that post badly. You just reinforced the rest of my contract law discussion.
Reply
:iconkamal-q:
Kamal-Q Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Abrahamic Religion favored Polyandry. This is still true of Islam.
Abrahamic Religion considered women and children to be considered property. This is still true of Islam.
Marriage was considered a business arrangement to strengthen power.


You mean polygyny, not polyandry, also Islam doesn't favor it, but rather allows it when certain conditions are met (and it makes a bit of sense in agrarian societies to maximize offspring) . Where are women and children defined as just property?

Reading is good for you :nod: - unfounded assertions are not.
---
Early Judaism
In traditional Judaism, women are for the most part seen as separate but equal. Women's obligations and responsibilities are different from men's, but no less important (in fact, in some ways, women's responsibilities are considered more important, as we shall see).

Early Christianity
Another way in which the early Church departed from Greco-Roman beliefs was in regard to its beliefs about the moral capacity of women. The pervasive Greco-Roman view that women were intellectually and morally incompetent profoundly affected their treatment under the law and ultimately resulted in a moral double standard by which women were judged harshly for crimes that were not even considered offenses when committed by men.

Early Islam
Some distinguished women converted to Islam prior to their husbands, a demonstration of Islam's recognition of their capacity for independent action. Caliph Umar appointed women to serve as officials in the market of Medina. Biographies of distinguished women, especially in Muhammad's household, show that women behaved relatively autonomously in early Islam. In Sufi circles, women were recognized as teachers, adherents, “spiritual mothers,” and even inheritors of the spiritual secrets of their fathers.
Reply
:iconkalinka-shadows:
Kalinka-Shadows Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
I see. My statement about contract law still stands. There does still exist a lemon test conflict here
Reply
:iconkamal-q:
Kamal-Q Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
In general, I agree with the rest of your post. I don't believe states have any right interfering with what people do privately.
Reply
:iconkalinka-shadows:
Kalinka-Shadows Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
I should do a better job with staying on topic.
Reply
:icontetchist:
Tetchist Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
"shouldn't no-fault divorce be outlawed?"

separation of church and state, bro.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
A lot of people seem to oppose civil gay marriage, so I was ignoring that.

(for some reason, if you call it a civil marriage, it's wrong, but civil union is okay? ... it's stupid. :shrug:)
Reply
:icontetchist:
Tetchist Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
I don't understand this reply. you were ignoring the separation of church and state?
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
The people that I mentioned in the OP (people 'fighting for the sanctity' of marriage, opposing gay marriage) usually ignore the separation of church and state.
Reply
:icontetchist:
Tetchist Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
but I assume that you support the separation. why then make arguments that ignore it?
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
You misunderstand the approach entirely. She is not debating, she is gathering information. She wants to know your reaction or opinion on how they would answer such arguments, your take on what such a supporter would think.
Reply
:icontetchist:
Tetchist Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
you should look up the word "argument".
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
... Kid, reread my post. I in no way misuse the word "argument".

So you should learn to read.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconzinc-tails:
Zinc-Tails Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I believe she's "playing devils advocate" as it were. Creating an argument in the form of the opposition in or to lead to discussions refuting it.
Reply
:icontetchist:
Tetchist Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
this has become very silly.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Because I'm not making any arguments, at all. I want to see what other people think.


For example, your views are that you can have civil marriage, so it's a non-issue for you.
Reply
:icontetchist:
Tetchist Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
"Because I'm not making any arguments, at all."

I think you should look up what an argument is.

"your views"

my views?
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
I know you mean debating, but I'm not debating, I just want to know what others think.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconpuzzledheartbox:
PuzzledHeartBox Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
Anyway it depends on what marriage you're engaged in doesn't it? Holy matrimony(Church wedding/marriage) or a non-church wedding?

If the person married before God then he would be indeed in fault to ask for a no-fault divorce or a divorce at all cause it's sacred. Anyone who didn't marry for church can pretty much do as he or she pleases, there is nothing sacred or holy about it - for you didn't marry in front of god nor was he the witness to your marriage.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Well, these people seem to think that a totally civil gay marriage (not union) is 'wrong', because it ruins the sanctity of marriage, so I'll assume it must be the same for non-Christian marriage.
Reply
:iconpuzzledheartbox:
PuzzledHeartBox Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
They are idiots.. civil marriage =/= church marriage.
I doubt we can actually see the two as one and the same thing :shrug:
To me a church marriage is in the "presence of God", meaning all other forms of marriage are not related to the Church marriage.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
There is no God, only mental illness.
Reply
:iconeon-krate32:
eon-krate32 Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
:lol:
Reply
:iconpuzzledheartbox:
PuzzledHeartBox Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
God is flawed, just like all his creations :shrug:
Reply
Add a Comment: