Comments on "I Now Pronounce You..."

Go to No Answers Found Here. - Add a comment - Go to "I Now Pronounce You..."

Re: That the fundamentalists suffer from the "I think he doth protest too much"

Hey saul, thanks for reading.  Way to take the plunge, so to speak.  It's funny, this morning I watched "Shall We Dance?"  In this film, John Clark is a bored-to-tears attorney with a lovely wife and two kids, who decides to enroll in a ballroom dance class.  His wife, played brilliantly by Susan Sarandon, is concerned because he's acting weird and coming home late, and she's suspecting the worst.  So she hires a private detective to follow him around and see if he's having an affair.  In a consultation with the private detective, she tells him what she thinks marriage is all about:

"It's because we need a witness to our lives...your life will not go unnoticed, because I will notice it.  Your wife will not go unwitnessed because I will witness it."

Keep this little nugget in mind when you celebrate your 30th anniversary, Saul! 

posted by FineYoungSinger on February 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM | link to this | reply

Re:

Hi MandaLee, thanks for reading!

posted by FineYoungSinger on February 8, 2008 at 2:14 PM | link to this | reply

Re: an interesting topic adn one filled with gray areas.

Kabu---this is a great point!  You have touched upon a very important fact.  Sometimes you just don't know what you're getting yourself into when you marry.  I was also in a very abusive marriage, and I struggled with dissolving it for a long time.  The vow is "for better or for worse" after all.  But in the end, I realized (with the help of an annulment) that while the historical fact that we entered into the civil marriage, it was clear that neither me nor my ex-husband were really capable of this kind of contract, because he was an addict/abuser and I was an abuse victim.

If the children don't forgive the parent, consider this:  There's a disorder called Parental Alienation.  Check it out.  It's when a parent turns the children against the other parent in a divorced relationship.  It's usually the reason that a child can't forgive a parent.

posted by FineYoungSinger on February 8, 2008 at 2:13 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Well produced.

Hi KingKai, thanks for reading!  I was also on the fence regarding this issue for quite a long time.  It wasn't until I really understood Christ's commandment that I was able to see this issue for what it really is:  A DISTRACTION.  We're so easily diverted from the real issues--wars & rumors of wars that are all around us....

but yes, that's right, whether or not Fred and Randy want to enter into a civil union is SOOOOOOO much more important in the grand scheme of things.

posted by FineYoungSinger on February 8, 2008 at 2:07 PM | link to this | reply

That the fundamentalists suffer from the "I think he doth protest too much"

syndrome... is what I get out of those statistics.  I'm all for marriage.  Other people's.  I'm all for divorces.  People can stand each other or made a mistake getting married, then by all means, get out of it.  I just got married.  I find marriage a contract.  Period.  Nothing more; nothing less.  My wife looks at it as something a little more special.  I defer to her, for argument's sake.  But I am a person of my word and I will remain her husband until she dies or I do (unless something drastic happens).  But I am not the marrying kind.  I waited four decades.  If, for whatever reason, this union does not last, I will not ever marry again... What would be the point? 

posted by saul_relative on February 2, 2008 at 6:32 PM | link to this | reply

posted by Amanda__ on February 2, 2008 at 4:04 PM | link to this | reply

posted by Amanda__ on February 2, 2008 at 4:04 PM | link to this | reply

an interesting topic adn one filled with gray areas.

if two people are tearing each other apart or one is abusive and the other a victim then surely there is no marriage and to dissolve the sham is far more honest. I guess most people marry with high hopes and a degree of love or hope of love to grow. I do know that children never forgive their parents for divorcing. Or one parent anyway. Divorce always hurts the innocent.

posted by Kabu on February 2, 2008 at 6:28 AM | link to this | reply

Well produced. I definately had my tight-rope bouts on the topic.

posted by KingKai on February 1, 2008 at 9:09 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Mark and I have a civial marriage.

Sira, you are on the money!  Through your real-life example, you've not only given us an excellent example of why the statistics collected on marriage and divorce are as they are; you've also alluded to our understanding of God, and why it's often flawed---He's not a genie in a bottle.  We're not going to say the magic words and God will suddenly make our marriage perfect.  The rhetoric doesn't fly here.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 31, 2008 at 6:56 AM | link to this | reply

Re: You might notice that "marriage" is not mentioned in the Bible

Xeno-x----you bring up some excellent points here, and I believe you've filled in many spaces regarding this entire discussion.  When I add what you've interjected here to everything we've discussed thus far, a very clear picture forms.

This is why I feel that a critical look at scripture as a book is far more valuable to us on a spiritual level than putting it on a pedistal and nearly deifying it.  What's crystalizing here is that the laws of Leviticus do not condemn a specific action; the law condemns the mindset behind the action; the reason for the behavior.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 31, 2008 at 6:52 AM | link to this | reply

Mark and I have a civial marriage.

And no, that doesn't mean we treat each other in a civil manner.

Because we're not religious, neither one of us was in a hurry to stand up in front of a pastor or priest. That part of the ceremony wouldn't have had much meaning for us, because we don't attend church, or pray to any one God.

But we had a ceremony. We stood up in front of our friends and family, and said vows. It was a spiritual ceremony, based on the bond that we shared, and our promise to love each other and be faithful.

I think civil marriages got a bad reputation when the hollywood population started using them as a quick way to get hitched. A lot of people think that, by skipping the part with the vows to God, that you're losing the real meaning of marriage. They think that, by not having your union blessed by God, you're taking away from the seriousness of the bond, or downplaying the responsibility that you have, as a spouse.

But consider this - when you walk down the isle (or path, or whatever), you're walking towards another person. God isn't standing there, waiting to put a ring on your finger. That would be your husband, wife, or partner. I don't care if you're gay or straight - you're not marrying God.

And it's your spouse that deserves your consideration. It's your spouse that you're making promises to, who will be putting up with you when you're craving ice cream at 2 am, or pouting because you had a bad day. That's the person that's going to see you at your worst, and still love you. Yes, I know, God loves unconditionally. But He doesn't have to live with you...

I made my vows to Mark, and no one else. He's the person I'm accountable to. He's the one that's going to be hurt if I break those vows. He's the reason I take them seriously. And that, my friends, is marriage.

posted by Sira890 on January 30, 2008 at 6:04 PM | link to this | reply

You might notice that "marriage" is not mentioned in the Bible

except when Paul and I think Revelation compares a man and woman's marriage to that of church and Christ.

You will notice that Jesus mentions a "writ of divorcement".  he says "for the hardness of your hearts" it wasn't a matter in the beginning.

Why divorce in the first place?

Let's look at a natural situation.  A man gets with a woman, sleeps with her, the woman has a child by him, and he leaves, not taking responsibility for the child.  This is the "hardness of the heart" mentioned that necessitated both marriage and writs of divorce.

This is not a new phenomenon.

I conclude that marriage laws were set up to eliminate this.  Marriage became a necessary and a commanded thing so that the woman (more the children) was not left hanging out there high and dry.  That divorce laws and writs of divorcement were also a means of assuring that a man would not abrogate his responsibility toward his wife and children.

I also conclude that homosexuality is a natural thing.

I learned recently that the Old Testament Levicitus passage means something different than fundamentalists think it means.  A woman was considered almost a non-entity, with no rights as all at that time.  So that the abomination was not a homosexual act, but the treating another man as a non-entity without rights, as a woman.

Marriage -- the rights thereof -- of sharing property -- rights to children -- confers rights and privileges on a partner.  As it is practiced today, homosexual couples have fewer rights than do heterosexuals.

Several Christian denominations:  Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Church of Christ, Episcopal, and other churches, such as Unitarian, accept homosexuals and will perform marriages within the guidelines of local secular laws.

As a church ceremony, I see no difference.  I also don't remember anything in the Bible that says that marriage is for having children.  The necessity is for laws that give a homosexual partner the same rights vis a vis the other partner as a heterosexual.

I have argued scriptural references to homosexuality. Main gist is this:  much of what was practiced at the time and was notorious was indeed an abomination.  What is practiced today is no different than heterosexual relations.

posted by Xeno-x on January 30, 2008 at 2:56 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Re One more scripture you missed

thanks thoughtfulness, just want to assure you that no opinion is unwelcomed here.

Regarding Romans---When I said Scripture earlier, I should have clarified---I was referring to the Old Testament.  My bad.  Romans recaps the history behind the behavior admonished in Leviticus:  "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.  Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.   Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

When you run this verse through the filter of history, it's not a singular relationship that is being chastised here.  Check out gomedome's comment below; consider the world 5000 years ago, a world of control, power, manipulation, and the preservation of nation being primary over everything.  We certainly understand the preservation of nation, it's the concept that drove the Jews throughout the Old Testament, and that drove them to send Christ, their long awaited Messiah, to the Cross.

Compare this passage of Romans to Genesis 19, the story of Lot and the Sodomites---ALL the men of the city came to Lot's home?  They wanted his guest because Lot is the outsider, and they needed to establish their dominance.  Compare it to Judges---only in Judges, the concubine was handed over, and she was "abused" to her death.

How do these kinds of behaviors and the desire for a couple that is homosexual to enter into a binding contract to share their lives even remotely resemble each other?

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 30, 2008 at 2:06 PM | link to this | reply

Re One more scripture you missed

There are more than 2 scriptures, Take a look in Romans I think its towards the  beginning, they did put away the natural use of the woman and did burn in their lusts, one toward another  or close to that. I see your point of the irony and it's sad but true. I'm not one of them, and this is not my argument, (something one does to prove who's  right or wrong )it's just my opinion  but it feels like a mission has begun to prove its not only ridiculous but must be shown it's flaw as obvious, and I'm sure now that it is unfortunately unwelcomed .  I'm not feeling the opinion was worth any mistaken view of who  I am and who I seem to be. The blog was still a good one.

posted by thoughtfulness on January 30, 2008 at 1:40 PM | link to this | reply

Re: FineYoungSinger - a question in general about the Leviticus chestnut -reply

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING.........We have a winner, folks.  Welcome to the proper way to interpret scripture, a book containing the account of a people and their quest for God.

If we don't run scripture through the filter of history, the result is inevitable--the spread of error.  Let's compare what you've pointed out to the Gospels in the New Testament.  How often is homosexuality mentioned or implied by Jesus?  ZERO.  Now let's see, there's the letters of St. Paul left.  Class, how many of you knew that Tradition teaches us that St. Paul spent much of his time persecuting Christians?  What do you think one of the ways he might have persecuted Christians?  Could it be possible that he just might have been admonishing himself for his own bad behavior in his letters?

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 30, 2008 at 1:14 PM | link to this | reply

FineYoungSinger - a question in general about the Leviticus chestnut -reply

Most would agree that male on male gang rapes are an abomination and most people who have done any form of research on these passages begin to realize that this seems to be exactly what they are speaking to. A number of things are conveniently forgotten, willfully overlooked or never understood in the first place, when people attempt to use these passages to justify some of their contrived modern day beliefs. 

First and foremost, the authors were speaking to their contemporaries, which at the time, still consisted of a great number of pagans still practicing eons old pagan rituals. One of those rituals and a not uncommon practice, was animalistic male on male domination. (excuse me while I go and throw up). Where we can never know for sure exactly what the authors were saying, there are other irrefutable facts that render these words as being completely inconsistent if they are to be viewed as divinely inspired.

The widespread knowledge of homosexuality existing in all animal species is a fairly recent development (historically speaking). We have also surmised that homosexuality has remained as a small percentage constant in our species throughout recorded history. (it ain't spreading and it ain't contagious). Reasoning and our own life experiences should tell us that no one chooses their sexual orientation. So ultimately, what are people who would use these ancient passages to justify discrimination doing other than embarassing themselves by their displays of selective reasoning and ignorance?

posted by gomedome on January 30, 2008 at 1:01 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Let me be thoughtful

thoughtfulness---regarding the civil legality:  a civil union IS a binding contract, as I've stated in my post.  The further evidence of this is the necessity of another legal action to dissolve it (meaning divorce).

Regarding God's creation of marriage:  The irony of your argument is that statistically it is the Fundamentalist Christian-the one who most often purports the union between man and woman position-that will most likely be guilty of disregarding this union more often than other groups.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 30, 2008 at 12:09 PM | link to this | reply

Re: FineYoungSinger - a question in general about the Leviticus chestnut

GOME....Let me just tell you that this statement just made a major light bulb go off in my head.  You are so right, and that is a superb point.  In a male-dominated society, girl-on-girl is a turnon I guess--could it prove that the laws, no matter if they were inspired by God, were still written by MEN?  HMMMMM.

You've sent me on another tangent, though, where one word is coming to mind:  MANIPULATION.

There are two places in Scripture that talk about homosexual acts:  Genesis 19 and Judges 19.  Both are stories about a band of men that basically are looking to pull a prison rape.  This is a little stream of consciousness, but I'm wondering if Leviticus was discussing the violence of taking sex forceably rather than the expression of love consentually?  Something to ponder anyway.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 30, 2008 at 12:01 PM | link to this | reply

Let me be thoughtful

The purpose God created marriage for, and the importance he placed upon it to be lasting and fulfilling doesn't change even if every person on earth decided to treat it with no regard at all.  The failed marriages just reflect how easily God's plans for us are not followed or upheld by so many, thus bringing the heartaches and pain he wanted us to avoid. God sets rules for us to follow for our benefit. One other thing, civil unions seem to be a piece of paper with  legal importance  attached to it, why is that not binding?

posted by thoughtfulness on January 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM | link to this | reply

FineYoungSinger - a question in general about the Leviticus chestnut

Or similar passages that suggest man lying with man is an abomination. Ever notice that lesbians always get a bye? Not only in these old scriptures but in the way they are viewed by society in general as well.

posted by gomedome on January 30, 2008 at 11:45 AM | link to this | reply

Re:

spinner, thanks for reading.  Regarding the man with a man issue, I responded in the comment area of my previous post.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 30, 2008 at 11:36 AM | link to this | reply

Re:

sam....this is correct. Unfortunately, too many people have a mistaken view of what marriage is all about.  Perhaps this is the reason that Agnostics, Atheists, Catholics and Lutherans statistically have a 13% lower divorce rate.

Catholics & Lutherans have defined, rigorous pre-marital preparation that tries to shift the focus away from the wedding ceremony and onto the marriage, which requires the commitment of the two entering the contract.  There are no punches pulled--flat out, marriage takes work.  Even though there is a religious light on the civil union, that contract is taught to be binding, and both denominations frown upon divorce rather harshly because of it.

Agnostics and Atheists don't have all that religious fluff to fall back on, and as a result are very aware that marriage is a binding contract between two people that requires effort on both parts.  This attitude allows for overall a much more realistic mindset while entering into the marital contract.  Without a misconception of "love conquers all" and "God will do all the work", the couple will be much more likely to stick it out.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 30, 2008 at 11:30 AM | link to this | reply

Re: FineYoungSinger -you've encapsulated the definitions of marriage quite well

gome, as always, very astute.  Glad my Pam Anderson illustration hit home.

And your analogous illustration is right-on.  I wish I could have found the other statistics I read stating that the average Non-Denominational Christian has been married and divorced three times in their lifetime.  I couldn't use it in the post because I couldn't find the actual stat.  It does, however, reflect the lacking of self-awareness that a number of Born-Agains exhibit in other areas of their lives.  How?  In the fact that God doesn't make a marriage work for you, any more than He makes any kind of decisions or actions of any other kind for you.  You have to make it work for yourself.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 30, 2008 at 11:16 AM | link to this | reply

you have most defiantly hit the nail on the head when you said what God has put together. I can not see God bringing together a sinful act in marriage. let us not forget it is a sin in the eye's of God for a man to be with a man period. Just as it is a sin for a man and a woman to be together before marriage. this is my opinion and you know what they say about opinions

posted by spinner on January 30, 2008 at 10:54 AM | link to this | reply

I see you have the attention of your readers. A good post will do that. i think marriage has a better chance of succeeding when the commitment is two way and remains two way. People  get bored and move on. I believe lust has a lot to do with it!  sam

posted by sam444 on January 30, 2008 at 10:29 AM | link to this | reply

FineYoungSinger -you've encapsulated the definitions of marriage quite well

in this post.

Inadvertantly (or maybe not so inadvertantly), you have also outlined some of the inconsistencies in a number of positions held by people on this issue. Being united in marriage in a religious ceremony is merely a cultural tradition pertinent only to members of whichever religion we are speaking of. To insist that a religious marriage ceremony and the specific beliefs that accompany it pertaining to marriage, somehow are applicable to persons outside of that religion, is nothing more than imposing religious beliefs on others.  

The divorce statistics you cite would be hilarious if not for the life shattering trauma, grief and social chaos inherent in a marriage dissolution. The irony and humor found in the fact that those who have the worst track records are the same people that proclaim the loudest that they are the guardians of the sanctity of marriage. Not so coincidently, they are also the most vocal on the anti side of the same sex marriage issue . . . geez, why don't we insist that all driving instructors are legally blind? Listening to some of these folks is almost as ridiculous . . . I feel a post brewing.

posted by gomedome on January 30, 2008 at 10:14 AM | link to this | reply