Posted on 05/08/2009 10:13:24 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Look at the royal families of Europe - there’s your answer. It isn’t pretty
About ten years ago, I was posting on a message forum for women, and one woman introduced herself to us as “bisexual polyamory”. She said she had a husband and a girlfriend, and they all lived together with her and her husband’s sons. She claimed back then that being “polyamory” was the same as being “homosexual” in that she was “born that way.” (FTR, no, I myself don’t believe anyone is born either way.)
She also claimed that we all were repressed because each of us was married to one man. And she claimed that not allowing their threesome to marry was “discrimination”. We would argue with her and point out why polygamy was wrong. But, most worrisome was that she said she and her husband produced adult films. She also said sometimes the sons would curl up with her and her girlfriend. When we asked if her children were even involved in pornography, she kept vague and said, “Define pornography.” We didn’t know who the woman was, but we all were worried about those children.
That was ten years ago. And even back then there were a few articles in the MSM about polyamory couples. I remember thinking then that, after “homosexuality”, polyamory would be the next step down.
Only in so far on the defense of traditional marriage. I was not talking about any other general societal problems.
I did answer your question, the answer is the same answer you’d give to gay atheists who wants to marry, assuming you have one.
You do have one, right?
Do you believe that all gays are atheists?
Then I must say you have ignored every word I have ever said.
Divorce is only available in the case of Adultery, unless you are Catholic with lots of money. In any case that was Jesus's statement. Before Jesus a man could divorce his wife or any reason, but Jesus said it was not to be from the beginning. Implying that man had perverted God's will in the matter.
Do you have a point to make? If so make it instead of asking rhetorical questions.
I see you could not find any “wrath” in my previous posts.
“Divorce is only available in the case of Adultery...”
Not so. The Greek word used in Matthew’s gospel is pornea, which is translated “marital unfaithfulness”, harlotry(including adultery and incest), and idolatry (Matt. 19:9).
Like yourself, some say that Jesus meant adultery, and that adultery constituted grounds for divorce. But there is another Greek word (moicheia) which means adultery; in fact, that word is used in the same verse, thus drawing a distinction.
Pornea can be paralleled with “hardness of heart”, therefore braking the marriage covenant with the Lord. Naturally, this unfaithfulness may take other forms besides sexual promiscuity (Matt. 19:8[citing Moses’ Law]).
Husbands are to love there wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph. 5:25)
In 1 Corinthians 7: 10-16 we read another example of divorce which did not involve adultery.
Unlike Christ and the church, a man whom beats his wife and/or abuses her psychologically has broken that vow to the Lord to love, cherish, protect, nurture, built up, and serve her.
I guess one could avoid the whole issue as Jesus did and stay unmarried, on the other hand we could just pay off a priest or two and get a divorce for any reason we felt like lying about.
I have been married to the same woman for thirty seven years, and I can tell you that most married couples I know only have an arrangement, not a marriage, which makes it very easy to get bored with their spouse. No fault divorce is an abomination.
“...only have an arrangment, not a marriage...”
Anecdotal. Most couples I know are married, and a majority of them have been together for over 30 years. But that’s beside the point.
How you could extrapolate that Jesus avoided the whole issue is failing to actually read the Lords Word. He did not answer the Pharisees trick questions in the way they were hoping he would, but he did address the issue of marriage, among other things.
The Lords Word is not like a buffet, where you conveniently pick and choose the passages you like and pass over others. Not only did Jesus address the issue of marriage, but we find other passages in scripture as well that address this directly or by example.
sarcasm |?s?r?kaz?m| noun the use of irony to mock or convey contempt : his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment. See note at wit .
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from French sarcasme, or via late Latin from late Greek sarkasmos, from Greek sarkazein ‘tear flesh,’ in late Greek ‘gnash the teeth, speak bitterly’ (from sarx, sark- ‘flesh’ ). b
“Do you have a point to make? If so make it instead of asking rhetorical questions.”
I have yet to ask you a rhetorical question. You have yet to answer a real one.
Sarcasm? Is that what you call sarcasm? The mockery and contempt was easy to read in your posts. Hence the “wrath”, and so on and so forth, but sarcasm?
One has to be witty, clever, jocular. You possess none of these characteristics, unless bitter can be described as sarcasm.
I don't have a clue how you got on my case, but back of dufus. You and I are not in disagreement unless you want to argue about how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin. In which case I don't go there.
You obviously don’t understand what the term “rhetorical questions” means if you think you haven’t asked one.
If you have something to say, say it. If not stopping wasting my time.
You should have a clue. You’re the one that wanted to engage in “witty” exchange.
Put down the mic and get off the stage if you can dish it out, but can’t take it. You were serving up some lame ducks anyway.
“You obviously don’t understand what the term “rhetorical questions” means if you think you haven’t asked one.
If you have something to say, say it. If not stopping wasting my time.”
Do you believe that all gays are atheists?
Rule # 1 from Sal Alinsky's rules for radicals seems to be your best tool.
Right [/s], which is why we’re having this exchange.
Saul’s rule is that you destroy opposition, not suggest an option. With Communists, there is no exchange. There is a total silencing of the opposition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.