Marital Politics

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:27 pm

Marriage rights are a hot political topic these days. Many sexual, religious and political issues are involved and the topic ought to make for a wide-ranging discussion and debate on such life and death issues as reproductive rights, sexual relations, child-rearing, financial obligations and other legal responsibilites, plus a host of other topic-related subjects which any poster may wish to introduce.

The feminist Kate Millet wrote a book several decades ago called "Sexual Politics." Hopefully we may generate enough information, data, personal POV's, opinions and comments in this thread to provide text for a new book called "Marital Politics."

I know that's a tall order, but if we put our minds to it, I know we can do it. Whether any of us would want the book published or whether it gets edited not will not be up to any of us, since everything we post here is already the published property of our generous website host, "Debating Christianity."

To get the first chapter of our book started then, the first question will be;

What rights do men or women have in marriage or to get married at all?

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:30 pm

Cephus wrote:
jcrawford wrote:My personal marital relationship is not the issue here, Cephus, since my wife and I are beyond our best procreative and reproductive years, having already parented 4 happy children and looking forward to collecting our well deserved retirement pension and living happily ever after. Until you can deal with social and legal issues on an intellectual or even mature level instead of a personal one only, I'm afraid I may have to ignore most of your irrelevent comments and diatribes.
That's funny, a couple posts ago, you said you only had three children. Can't keep your story straight?

I have 3 from a former marriage. She has 1.

3+1 = 4.

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:36 pm

jcrawford wrote:I have 3 from a former marriage. She has 1.

3+1 = 4.

Ah, so you're both contributing to the destruction of marriage. Got it.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:18 pm

Cephus wrote:
jcrawford wrote:I have 3 from a former marriage. She has 1.

3+1 = 4.
Ah, so you're both contributing to the destruction of marriage. Got it.

How do you logically get to "destruction of marriage" from 'being married' and having children? Doesn't sound rational to me.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:49 am

I think Cephus is assuming that your former marriages ended in divorce(which would make you a hypocrite) as opposed to being widowed.

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:55 am

Wyvern wrote:I think Cephus is assuming that your former marriages ended in divorce(which would make you a hypocrite) as opposed to being widowed.

Precisely. If both were widowed, then I retract my statement. I just think it's funny that the divorce rate is so ridiculously high among Christians who otherwise sit around and whine how gays are going to ruin marriage.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:34 pm

Wyvern wrote:I think Cephus is assuming that your former marriages ended in divorce(which would make you a hypocrite) as opposed to being widowed.

Why would you, Cephus or anyone else automatically assume that being divorced makes one a hypocrite, and why wouldn't their presumption automatically qualify them as bigots?

palmera · Post by **palmera** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:44 pm

jcrawford wrote:

Why would you, Cephus or anyone else automatically assume that being divorced makes one a hypocrite, and why wouldn't their presumption automatically qualify them as bigots?

While I don't think said presumption makes one a bigot, I do agree here that divorce does not make one a hypocrite unless one's motives upon entering a marriage in the first place were to cash in on some form of good (i.e. money) through divorce or annulment. In such a case a person would be a hypocrite for reciting the wedding vows, not for sabotaging the marriage. That being said, one could be considered a hypocrite as well if entering reciting vows one is not absolutely sure about... further, I don't really think failure in marriage actually makes one a hypocrite... not in the literal/grammatical sense; it's a subtlety that perhaps has been overlooked.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:19 pm

palmera wrote:While I don't think said presumption makes one a bigot, I do agree here that divorce does not make one a hypocrite unless one's motives upon entering a marriage in the first place were to cash in on some form of good (i.e. money) through divorce or annulment. In such a case a person would be a hypocrite for reciting the wedding vows, not for sabotaging the marriage. That being said, one could be considered a hypocrite as well if entering reciting vows one is not absolutely sure about... further, I don't really think failure in marriage actually makes one a hypocrite... not in the literal/grammatical sense; it's a subtlety that perhaps has been overlooked.

Why might it not be considered bigoted to assume and ascribe such hypocrisy to the motives and actions of all divorced persons, when the particulars in each case are not known?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:23 pm

Wyvern wrote:I think Cephus is assuming that your former marriages ended in divorce(which would make you a hypocrite) as opposed to being widowed.

Cephus wrote:Precisely. If both were widowed, then I retract my statement. I just think it's funny that the divorce rate is so ridiculously high among Christians who otherwise sit around and whine how gays are going to ruin marriage.

The writer of Matthew wrote:Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians wrote:But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

So, when a Christian indicates that he and his wife both have children from previous marriages, we do not have to assume that the Christian is a hypocrite. They could have been widowed, been left by an unbelieving spouse or they may have divorced an adulterous spouse. The divorces could also have taken place prior to the Christian becoming a Christian. Let us not assume hypocrisy and let us not ask for personal details.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:44 pm

McCulloch wrote:So, when a Christian indicates that he and his wife both have children from previous marriages, we do not have to assume that the Christian is a hypocrite. They could have been widowed, been left by an unbelieving spouse or they may have divorced an adulterous spouse. The divorces could also have taken place prior to the Christian becoming a Christian. Let us not assume hypocrisy and let us not ask for personal details.

Hey, McCulloch. As an agnostic atheist, you sure know your Bible better than a lot of Christians in North America. Now I see why you got the best debater award.

You sure you don't want us to go into personal details about our marriages and divorces? It's very therapeutic, you know, and couldn't be considered off-topic. Besides, we need at least 300 pages of material on this thread if our dear website host is ever going to publish it as a best seller in book form.