Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 22, 2014, 08:57:01 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
  • Total Members: 23518
  • Latest: 092071
Stats
  • Total Posts: 639731
  • Total Topics: 48561
  • Online Today: 179
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online
Users: 5
Guests: 161
Total: 166

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: A ban on divorce  (Read 1606 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Funkengruven

  • Member
  • Posts: 95
A ban on divorce
« on: November 12, 2008, 01:08:47 PM »
I thought this video was a great response to the passage of Prop 8 in California.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cca5e8a78a/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce-from-jonathan-smith

It almost makes me wish there was such an actual petition floating around the state.

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,029
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: A ban on divorce
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2008, 02:38:59 PM »
I signed it.

Offline MYSTERY

  • Member
  • Posts: 186
Re: A ban on divorce
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2008, 03:15:52 PM »
Marriage has always been an institution that was never intended to be allowed to divorce. It has been our civil laws that granted couples be able to divorce in a secular sense, not a christian one. After a civil seperation is granted the sacremental union still stands, hence no divorce.

The inadmissibility of absolute divorce was ordained by Christ Himself according to the testimony of the Apostles and Evangelists: "Whoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mark 10:11, 12 -- Cf. Matthew 19:9; Luke 16:18). In like manner, St. Paul: "To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife" (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11). In these words Christ restored the original indissolubility of marriage as it had been ordained by God in the Creation and was grounded in human nature. This is expressly stated by Him against the Pharisees, who put forward the separation allowed by Moses: "Moses by reason of hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives": but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8); "He who made man from the beginning, made them male and female. And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matthew 19:4-6). The indissolubility of all marriage, not merely of Christian marriage, is here affirmed. The permanence of marriage for the whole human race according to natural law is here confirmed and ratified by a Divine positive ordinance.

Atheist don't believe in GOD, but GOD believes in them and loves them. Never let the failure of man conflict with your love of GOD.

Offline edfu

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,084
Re: A ban on divorce
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2008, 01:25:45 AM »
 ::)

the original indissolubility of marriage as it had been ordained by God in the Creation and was grounded in human nature

Gosh, any witnesses to this "Creation" of "indissolubility"?   Inasmuch as your reliable and incontrovertible sources also tell us there were only one man and one woman, it's not like there were a lot of choices, y'know what I mean?

The divorce rate being what it is--what?  isn't it more than 50%?--we must be surrounded by  alien cyborgs who are lacking "in human nature." 

I'll wager one original Quaalude from the 1970s that you also believe two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to marry, either.     
« Last Edit: November 13, 2008, 02:35:42 AM by edfu »
"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

Offline BT65

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,945
Re: A ban on divorce
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2008, 01:52:56 PM »
Mystery, I respect your beliefs.  But you are taking the word of people you don't even know who claimed they translated word-for-word from "Dead Sea scrolls" written by some Empirical being that not everyone believes in.  Also, those words were written at a much different and far past time.  Things that happened in Bible days don't necessarily apply to modern times.  Hence, why most people (notice I said most) drive automobiles instead of riding everywhere horse and buggy.  Times change, laws change, things become more in tune with the times we live in.
I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,029
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: A ban on divorce
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2008, 03:05:20 PM »
Of course back then "until death do us part" meant like 10 to 20 years. Not such a big commitment! ;)

I don't know if Mystery meant this but what I took away from his post was the hypocrisy of many Christians. They get all bent out of shape about gay marriage and cite a couple of vague Biblical references against homosexuality but ignore all the references regarding divorce. Apparently Jesus felt divorce was important enough to talk about, homosexuality... not so much.

Not that something in a 2000 year old book should have anything to do with my love life.

Offline Oceanbeach

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,565
Re: A ban on divorce
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2008, 03:14:47 PM »
I had the opportunity to see the "Dead Sea Scrolls" in a San Francisco museum last Spring.  I was with the man, I hope to marry in California someday.  If Edfu is offering a 1970 Honda Qualuude, I'll take that bet.  ;D  Have the best day
Michael

Offline MYSTERY

  • Member
  • Posts: 186
Re: A ban on divorce
« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2008, 04:00:00 PM »
Actually, I believe the best solution would be to remove government from the business of marriage altogether. Marriage should be a sacred trust between two consenting individuals and, if they wish, their families and houses of worship, not individuals and the government. We are treading in very dangerous waters when we ask the government to regulate personal relationships, especially something with the religious overtones of marriage.

As far as the religious rite to marry that is up to each denomination and their interpretation of holy scripture to decide on the parameters of marriage. My earlier post only showed that heterosexual marriages already are bound and can not be totally dissolved by civil courts.  :)
Atheist don't believe in GOD, but GOD believes in them and loves them. Never let the failure of man conflict with your love of GOD.

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,246
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: A ban on divorce
« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2008, 04:25:18 PM »
Actually, I believe the best solution would be to remove government from the business of marriage altogether. Marriage should be a sacred trust between two consenting individuals and, if they wish, their families and houses of worship, not individuals and the government. We are treading in very dangerous waters when we ask the government to regulate personal relationships, especially something with the religious overtones of marriage.

I know that when hubby and I were married in Montreal two years ago, it was a completely legal event with quite a bit of paperwork, signatures, etc.  It was a totally different experience from when my ex-(wife) and I were married years ago.  There was minimal paperwork for that marriage though it was in a church.  Our marriage in Montreal was legal, not religious, which is exactly what the government here in the US needs to be concerned with. 
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,386
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: A ban on divorce
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2008, 05:33:45 PM »
Actually, I believe the best solution would be to remove government from the business of marriage altogether. Marriage should be a sacred trust between two consenting individuals and, if they wish, their families and houses of worship, not individuals and the government. We are treading in very dangerous waters when we ask the government to regulate personal relationships, especially something with the religious overtones of marriage.

I'm not sure that civil marriage is about "regulating" personal relationships.  I would like to marry my partner because after 18 yrs together, the law should put him first in line for making decisions about me, if I can't and for inheriting my (ours really) property when I die -- and vice verse, of course.  It's about being able to pass on SS benefits, it's about ME deciding who my next of kin is -- and right now, without civil marriage, I can't.  Even with all the legal documents that we have, my biological family could swoop in and potentially nullify it all in court (I do live in Virginia, you know).  This is why civil marriage is important.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline MYSTERY

  • Member
  • Posts: 186
Re: A ban on divorce
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2008, 06:25:40 PM »
If the separation of church and state means anything, it must include the idea that people cannot be forced by the government to live according to the dictates of othersí religion. Just because one or many groups consider something sacred doesnít mean that everyone must be forced to do so as well. Just because one or many religious groups consider same-sex marriage a sacrilege doesnít mean that everyone else must be forced to define marriage in a way that would exclude gay couples.

It also isnít good enough for people to argue that same-sex marriage is against Godís will ó itís fine if churches teach this, but no government is under any obligation to legislate in a manner that is consistent with what what any church interprets Godís will to be. That would be the very essence of what it means to live in a theocracy.

Marriage does not exist in order to further any mandates from anyoneís gods. Marriage does not exist simply in order to encourage and protect procreation. Marriage does not exist because it is a ďnaturalĒ function. No, marriage exists because society finds that it is valuable and worthy to encourage and protect committed, intimate relationships that are pursued over an extended period of time. As an institution, marriage helps provide legal protection and stability to human relationships that might not otherwise survive problems and pressures under more informal terms. Financial and social benefits are thus conferred upon marital relationships because their long-term stability furthers general social stability.

So far, no government has suggested that any religious groups be forced to perform and recognize gay marriages, nor should it - thatís the flip-side of the separation of church and state and is as it should be. Just as the government is not obligated to define marriage along religious lines, religious groups are not obligated to define marriage along civil lines.

Marriage within a religion might be conceived as having been authored by God, but that is not and cannot be the starting basis for civil society. In civil society, marriage is authored by secular laws voted upon by representatives of the people and as interpreted by the courts. Thus, we are the authors of civil marriage, and each church could interpret and sanctify marriage upon there own interpretation.

Atheist don't believe in GOD, but GOD believes in them and loves them. Never let the failure of man conflict with your love of GOD.

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.