marriage

[inked]

marriage and society:
http://www.mercatornet.com/index.php...sk=view&id=263

marriage and religion and society:
www.religiouscoalitionformarriage.org

[GreyMouser]

Question: Is there any Church which follows Jesus's explicit instructions on when divorce is permissible?

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Matthew 19: 8-9

I note that Jesus doesn't mention marital infidelity by the man as a reason for divorce- is this generally agreed to apply equally?

Please note- this is not snark, I'm genuinely curious

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I imagine the reason he doesn't mention it is because in Jewish society, a man could divorce his wife, but a woman couldn't divorce her husband. So, if a wife cheated, her husband could divorce her, but if a husband cheated, his wife couldn't.

EDIT:

P. S. Check out St. Thomas.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/506201.htm

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Question: Is there any Church which follows Jesus's explicit instructions on when divorce is permissible?

I'm not particularly sure. One of my religion teachers takes this very seriously, as I think all Christians should. But all this world wants is instant gratification...

[Rían]

(re men/women and divorce) - Yeah, but either would get stoned for adultery, not just the woman. And another interesting bit - if a woman was raped in a city, she was considered a guilty party (as well as the man) because she could have screamed, but if she was raped in the countryside, she was considered innocent and the man guilty.

Interesting question, Mouser - I don't know if Gwai is right, that doesn't sound quite right to me ...

Originally Posted by Merc

I'm not particularly sure. One of my religion teachers takes this very seriously, as I think all Christians should. But all this world wants is instant gratification...

yeah, and the innocent kids are the cannon fodder ...

[klatukatt]

IN REPLY TO THE VERY FIRST POST
(just because I haven't been reading the arguments)

Marrage is a political institution that is most often used for it's legal advantages. Such advantages include:
- All posessions defaulting to the spouse upon death
- Visitation rights in hospitals
- Lower taxes
- Easier to buy a house/car
- Merging of two seperate estates

So, marrage is a big commitment, as is backed up by religion. I glanced at the previous comments citing the Bible, and I wholeheartedly agree that people shouldn't get divorced.

However, people do make mistakes, and that is why we have divorce. NO ONE should get married when they are 20, because they are too young and stupid to make that choice.

If you want to get married you have to be prepared for a lifetime commitment.



One more point: today's model of marrage leaves no room for marrages involving three or more people, which would be quite politically useful in the case of many poorer citizens wanting to live together for the rest of their lives for stability.
Society objects on moral grounds. I understand this. Still, there should be some provision to allow three way marrages to take place.

[Elfhelm]

Actually, marriages exist in many other cultures, not just western Judeo-Christian culture. So I don't know why only one culture's scripture is being referenced with regard to marriage.

In my opinion, the problem with absolute inflexible laws is that they take precedence over the people involved. In an abusive relationship it is wrong to force the woman to continue to be married to a man who beats her, and it is bad for the children to see it. If a religious leader arranges and forces a marriage on a girl who has no choice, although it isn't legally rape, it is technically rape from my point of view.

It was distressing to hear recently that two kids I married are now thinking of getting a divorce. But they agreed to try to work it out. I think they are right for each other, or I wouldn't have married them. I think they are just using the word "divorce" to scare each other. And I don't think that's wise at all! Divorce is a very serious thing. It shouldn't be used as a ploy. There aren't any children involved other than the two of them.

I do not think marriage should be legal or religious permission to have sex. I think it should be a statement of the commitment to make a family together, supported by both sides of the family.

[Rían]

*reads last sentence*

Yay! The "C" word!!

The thing that bugs me about the whole "fluid" family definition thing is that IMO, the kids get the short end of the stick every time. And I hate when kids are seen as accessories or toys, instead of very vulnerable human beings that need some commitment from their parents.

I hope they can work though it, Elfhelm. Divorce may get rid of some problems, but it tends to add at least twice as many new ones ... people just don't seem to realize that. People that stick it out and work through it are usually VERY happy that they did. Have them write 10 things (or 5 if they're really having trouble) that they liked about the person when they got married and stick it up on the bathroom mirror and read it several times a day.

[Elfhelm]

Yeah, well I agree. If they weren't intent on working out their problems, which is completely necessary to make any family work, they should never have taken any vows.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I'm not particularly sure. One of my religion teachers takes this very seriously, as I think all Christians should. But all this world wants is instant gratification...

I'm thinking that there are a lot of denominations these days that are more liberal than Jesus, whereas the Catholic Church (any others?) is actually stricter.

Even disregarding the man/woman issue, is there any church that says divorce is justified but only on grounds of infidelity?

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

*reads last sentence*

Yay! The "C" word!!

The thing that bugs me about the whole "fluid" family definition thing is that IMO, the kids get the short end of the stick every time. And I hate when kids are seen as accessories or toys, instead of very vulnerable human beings that need some commitment from their parents.

I hope they can work though it, Elfhelm. Divorce may get rid of some problems, but it tends to add at least twice as many new ones ... people just don't seem to realize that. People that stick it out and work through it are usually VERY happy that they did. Have them write 10 things (or 5 if they're really having trouble) that they liked about the person when they got married and stick it up on the bathroom mirror and read it several times a day.

Yeah, just watched a close friend go through his third!!- All of his friends tried to show him he was messing up, but in his case it's Peter Pan syndrome- his kids and mine grew up together, so it's painful to watch- it's been really hard on them. Taiwanese society is 'liberalising' but divorce is still very shameful.

It's funny- theoretically I'm very liberal, but when it comes to my own life I always seem to choose a more traditional path.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

And another interesting bit - if a woman was raped in a city, she was considered a guilty party (as well as the man) because she could have screamed, but if she was raped in the countryside, she was considered innocent and the man guilty.

This is actually extremely faulty reasoning. There is a social-psychological phenomenon called 'The Bystander Effect'. To put it concisely, one is actually less safe in a crowd, because even if one obviously needs help the bystanders will likely assume that someone else will give it but when everybody assumes that, no one does until it's too late.
Sad isn't it? But there have been real cases where a woman has been raped and screaming in a well populated area and not a single person who heard actually did anything.

[Rían]

Yes, I've heard of that, and the thing to do is to yell "FIRE!!!" at the top of your lungs.

But the point was not if she's saved or not. Hopefully she's saved from the rape because of her screams! The point is if the chance to be saved is even available, and she's given the benefit of the doubt if it's out in the boonies where no one can hear.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

This is actually extremely faulty reasoning. There is a social-psychological phenomenon called 'The Bystander Effect'. To put it concisely, one is actually less safe in a crowd, because even if one obviously needs help the bystanders will likely assume that someone else will give it but when everybody assumes that, no one does until it's too late.
Sad isn't it? But there have been real cases where a woman has been raped and screaming in a well populated area and not a single person who heard actually did anything.

True in today's climate of individualism: I can't be troubled to be involved.

But in the OT period under discussion the group mentality was to protect the assaulted and it was considered a moral duty to respond to a cry for assistance. You might have access to Jesus' parable about the Israelite fallen among thieves whom the priest and the levite did not help but the Samaritan did. That's the undergirding that makes it so poignant. Neither the priest nor the levite did what was required.

[Nurvingiel]

There was an article in the latest Utne Reader (a truly great American magazine) about managed monogamy, it is called. Some people have (sort of) monogamous relationships with more than one person, all of whom are aware of the situation.

Full article can be read here.

Seems like managed monogamy is a oxymoron, not unlike industrial park or jumbo shrimp. The article said that some people feel this will lead to legalised group marriage. If managed monogamous relationships involved all the people being legally married (I don't think it does) than I would agree with that.

The article was discussing this WRT the United States, but it probably happens in other countries too.

I don't have a problem with the relationship itself, though it needs a new name, not that names really matter, but I do get one thing from this article.

I think our tax laws for multi-person households should be mildly reformed to reward people for supporting each other. This, IMO, is the point of our current marriage tax deals (where if one spouse makes a certain amount more than the other and is effectively supporting him/her, they pay less tax), but if two friends live together, and one supports the other, I think they should get the same deal. Or if three managed monogamy people support each other, same deal. That is the spirit of the law, I think.

The article got me thinking about Canadian tax laws. What are your thoughts?

Sorry for the derailing, I thought you guys might find this interesting.

[klatukatt]

I think they should call it poligomy and make it legal!

It would work!

[inked]

Oh, God, NURV! Has postmodernism reached the very fabric of language and rendered definition passe or obsolete?

Mono = one; -gamy = partner What could be more clear?

But, see here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monogamy if your dictionary is still in Sweden!

BY DEFINITION monogamy is one partner. If you manage to have more than one at a time (either as a temporal sequence or physical reality!) IT IS NOT MONOGAMY.

Polyamory is perhaps the best politically correct term since it does not entail the whole sense of marriage that -gamy does socially and historically and traditionally in known cultures and two-sex relationships. In polyamory you have more than one sexual partner at the time without specification of the involved individuals' genders.

Polygamy is the partnering of one male with multiple females in a marriage.

Polyandry is the partnering of one female with multiple males in a marriage.

Sheesh, what do they teach in the schools these days?! Certainly not literacy, it would appear. The only thing managed in this article is a demonstration of the incoherence of the author's definition. But that may be a strategy rather than ignorance. It certainly gives the appearance of ignorance rather well.

Perhaps if polyamory becomes the norm the state should require DNA samples at the time of inception of the relationship so as to determine whom is biologically related to whom and who should therefore support the inevitable offspring of such confusions. The courts will never sort this out with claims of whom mothered/fathered whom without aid.

And, purely in passing, this sort of sloppy use of language does give one insight into the inability of persons to contracept properly. They clearly cannot read or, if readers, have any sense of definition by which communication of ideas can occur. "Take daily" or "condom on before any sexual contact" or similar instructions must pose insurmountable difficulties!

[Insidious Rex]

Polyamory is nothing new. Its gained more popularity in the last few years however with the New Age crowd and in trendy neo-pagan circles and such and can even be found among some main stream folk nowadays (not just crazy mormon pedophiles). I think the concept is fine its just you better be sure all parties involved understand what they are getting into and can deal with it well. But if all those factors are taken into account and its done well it seems to reflect our natural state as a species better then any current mating set up.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Oh, God, NURV! Has postmodernism reached the very fabric of language and rendered definition passe or obsolete?

Mono = one; -gamy = partner What could be more clear?

I agree completely, didn't you notice my use of the term "oxymoron"? I also agree with you that polyamory would be a much more appropriate term, and that condoms are great.

Originally Posted by inked

Sheesh, what do they teach in the schools these days?! Certainly not literacy, it would appear. The only thing managed in this article is a demonstration of the incoherence of the author's definition. But that may be a strategy rather than ignorance. It certainly gives the appearance of ignorance rather well.

The article's author was using the term that practitioners of this polyandrous relationship were using - he didn't make it up. Don't worry, the Utne Reader is a highly competant magazine.

Originally Posted by inked

Perhaps if polyamory becomes the norm the state should require DNA samples at the time of inception of the relationship so as to determine whom is biologically related to whom and who should therefore support the inevitable offspring of such confusions. The courts will never sort this out with claims of whom mothered/fathered whom without aid.

Maybe that would have to happen if there was a lawsuit.

However, it seems that the norm in a polyandrous relationship would be that all people in the marriage would support all offspring from said marriage. I mean, that's one of the major points of the whole thing isn't it?

Originally Posted by inked

And, purely in passing, this sort of sloppy use of language does give one insight into the inability of persons to contracept properly. They clearly cannot read or, if readers, have any sense of definition by which communication of ideas can occur. "Take daily" or "condom on before any sexual contact" or similar instructions must pose insurmountable difficulties!

I'm not quite sure where you're going with that, but I do love condoms!

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Polyamory is nothing new. Its gained more popularity in the last few years however with the New Age crowd and in trendy neo-pagan circles and such and can even be found among some main stream folk nowadays (not just crazy mormon pedophiles). I think the concept is fine its just you better be sure all parties involved understand what they are getting into and can deal with it well. But if all those factors are taken into account and its done well it seems to reflect our natural state as a species better then any current mating set up.

I don't suppose IR that the obvious fact that it isn't a natural state anywhere in the world would change your last sentence? I know facts and data aren't your strong point, but this over the top even for you!