*NOTE. To answer your questions: no, I have not actually been divorced four times. I’ve been married once, and I’m still married to her, and I’ll never be married to anyone else. The title was tongue-in-cheek. I was writing it from the perspective of the sorts of people who rant about the sanctity of marriage, yet have racked up multiple ex-spouses. Perhaps I should have been more clear about this. In any case, there it is. I appreciate your concern.
Live together and share funds-insurance tax stuff with each other. That’s it. No adoptions from outside the union. Should not be allowed to teach or mentor children in any way.
I completely understand the author’s point; that is, straight marriage has severe issues because of the high divorce rate. At this point in my life, I know more divorced people than I do married couples. HOWEVER, marriage was designed for the procreation of children and the establishment of a strong parental unit/home. IMHO, gay marriages brings down the sanctity of straight ones.
Someone who gets it. I don’t like same-sex marriage and hate the idea that it’s being forced down the throats of more and more states but it isn’t near the threat to traditional marriage that the easing of divorce laws have been. Marriage went for a permanent partnership to a temporary contract that lasts only till something better comes along.
Marriage is not and never has been a “right”. If it were a “right” the state could not tell you that you can’t marry your sister/brother. It could not tell you that you can’t marry one of your children. You must get permission from the state to marry.
There are some Freepers who like to bleat that they have been married multiple times and seem to think it’s some kind of badge of honor (as if to say that they have proved more than one woman thought they were the cat’s meow).
What it instead tells me that a) they have extremely poor judgment in their choice of mates, and b) they don’t honor their promises, i.e., “to have and to hold from this day forth.”
To defend homo “marriage” on the grounds that heterosexual marriage is unstable is a lot like saying that because rape is rampant we should allow murder.
The solution isn’t to further destabilize marriage by broadening its definition; it’s to strengthen it by restoring it to its once sacred position as a social and religious institution.
Clearly the problem is not marriage, but *government* controlled marriage. The abrogation of a holy rite by religions is a terrible disaster.
Marriage is a biological advantage that humans have over animals. It helps women, men, and most certainly, their children. But it can only function properly when it is “socially enforced”. This is done to protect a breeding couple from those who want sex, but are either unwilling, unable, or otherwise should not make or raise children.
This means that, when married, other people keep their hands off, *or else*. Social enforcement. And religion is a good way to accomplish this. But government isn’t.
In a way I can sort of understand his point. I have known lots of friends who have been married and divorced, some several times.
I married my wife after just a few weeks of knowing her, and not even meeting face to face. That was over 13 years ago, not every day has been sunshine and roses, but I think when two people really love each other, AND are committed to each other it will work itself out.
I dont really have any answers I guess, but sometimes you have to just let things slide a little, not everything is personal.
“Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous, because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial separations largely increased; and such shamelessness of life followed that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be true-namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls, but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.
Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.
Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society.”
—Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum 1880
89-90 years later Ronald Reagan signed the first no-fault divorce law in the US, in 15 years it comes to every state. 35 years after the first no-fault divorce law the first US state accepts ‘gay marriage.’ 9 years after that there are 17 states that accept ‘gay marriage’ with several court cases pending that could eventually turn over every state marriage amendment.
Freegards
I sat down to tell the world that gay marriage is the greatest threat to the sanctity of marriage.
But then I remembered this:
What you forgot is this is not about marriage. It is about evil and good. Will we allow evil to triumph and destroy our society or will we take a stand.
the author should have clearly stated two homosexuals do not produce children. period.
~snip~
That’s because gay marriage is not the biggest threat to marriage.
Ouch. These and many other stinging rebukes are found within this article. Is Matt Walsh making valid points or not?
Moral Absolutes Ping!
Freepmail Responsibility2nd or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list. FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search [ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
What else can you do . . . when one party simply abandons the other?
This is what has happened to me. My wife left me. For no good reason. I believe in marriage. I took my vows seriously and did not break them. I did everything I could over the last couple of years to try to keep our marriage together. But she was not willing. I am opposed to divorce. But there is nothing I can do to stop it. The divorce is scheduled to be finalized next week.
I’ve been married once, and never divorced, so I feel qualified to make a statement here.
Yes, divorce and other consequences of the sexual revolution of the 60s, have practically destroyed marriage.
But that is no excuse for taking a bad situation and making it worse.
Very true. So true it hurts.
My synod (Lutheran LCMS) is to lax on divorce. Even with that we have lower rates than most churches.
Most pastors and priests are very scared about preaching or talking about divorce. To many in the pews have gone through it, and many are hurting from it, to make it an easy sermon.
We as the Church need to fix our own flippant disregard of marriage.
Liberal Premise: Marriage isn’t working so we should let gay people do it.
Riiggghhhttttt......
Divorce is a process and symptom, not a disease to marriage. Marriages that end in divorce usally indicate the marriage was a bad idea to begin with. Especially those within the first five years.
I see the biggest problem these days as the instant gratification of quick marriages without thinking through the consequences of the action. People don’t seem to want to take the time to truly get to know someone first and then are shocked by behavior later.
I’ve been married for close to 30 years and I’ve had many opportunites to cheat. But if I wanted to fool around I wouldn’t have gotten married and stayed single.
But the fact heterosexuals screw it up doesn’t equal same sex marriage is better. Let’s say the majority of states go for same sex marriage and it eventually becomes moot. Are these same leftist going to blast marriage when same sex couples start divorcing at the same rates?
Trying to say divorce is a reason to have same sex marriage is a stretch at best.
Then pointing out gay’s will get divorced also (and over time probably statistically catch up) again does nothing to advance the pro-gay argument.
If you have to resort to “well, it won’t be near as bad as marriage now” you’ve probably run out of steam.