They’re in in the order I could dredge them up from my memory.
1 Like
19 Likes
That’s a perfect response.
1 Like
I’ve gotten really tired of people like them saying my marriage is invalid. My wife and I are the opposite sex, straight, monogamous, Christians, married in a church (sorry if the vanilla’s getting oppressively thick for you in here, and I’ll stop before pouring even more of it on the fire), but we don’t have kids, and even went to a doctor to make sure we stayed that way.
I’ve also gotten really tired of people like them saying the definition of marriage is now and has always been one man and one woman, ever since 4004 BC, because not only was Judaism polygamous for it’s first millennium or more, and its descendant Islam still is, but many other cultures around the world are too. St. Paul didn’t forbid polygamous people from converting to Christianity (though he did say they couldn’t become bishops), and he didn’t forbid them to divorce their extra spouses. Many of those folks think divorce and remarriage should be legal, even though Jesus says much different things about it, but these folks are ok with it being legal. Monogamy’s not a definition of marriage, it’s a moral choice for how to live. Not the law’s business, and I’ve got a number of friends who’ve made different moral choices.
8 Likes
I was wondering when someone would get around to pointing out that they aren’t actually planning to split up or even stop calling each other husband and wife. Somehow the secular government is able to define marriage in a way that retroactively takes away its sacredness, and the state should recognise a divorce that the couple themselves don’t recognise. Government intervention in marriage is unwelcome, but the government removing legal obstacles to certain groups is seen as their “defining” marriage. It’s all such a weird argument that doesn’t even make sense from their own perspective - the government gives churches some leeway to define marriage within wider boundaries, so they could still claim that their relationship was about kids, not love under the new definition.
2 Likes
That’s why it doesn’t make sense.
3 Likes
It definitely puts the “SMH” into the Sydney Morning Herald.
1 Like
What’s pretty funny is that government defined marriage has only really been about children and families after massive, catastrophic wars, when they needed specifically to rebuild population levels. Otherwise, marriage has been mostly an economic arrangement, and a tool of diplomacy.
It’s like these people have no idea what they’re talking about. Which I’m confident is pretty much the case here.
I have a pet theory, really a hypothesis, that Paul favored celibacy over marriage for a specific reason. He knew a marriage bonded man and woman who were faithfully monogamous couldn’t bear that many children. Maybe a dozen in his time. Most would die in their childhood of course. That’s no way to grow a cult.
Celibate missionaries though… They could convert whole crowds of credulous, illiterate fools with nothing more than a couple of close-up street magic tricks and some psychotic babbling.
1 Like
And don’t forget inheritance rights: no spouse, no kids means the church gets it all.
5 Likes
Friends uninvited them to a wedding…
Friend of Christian couple who vowed divorce over gay marriage brutally uninvites them from her wedding
” I don’t want you anywhere near my wedding. You and your views are not welcome, because you’re right — the institution we’re marrying into isn’t the same one you think you’re in.”
12 Likes
Oh they exist,
but they’re all going to burn in hell for not propagating properly and/or expediently, thus denying a hungry god an adequate supply of only slightly tainted souls.
One man is willing to give up his wife if the government allows same-sex marriage, his wife is totally on board with this concept.
Pretty clear what’s happening here. I think you’re right.
Soon we’ll hear that the gentleman in question is going to enter into a union with a man while still being overtly homophobic, just to spite the government. his former wife will do likewise with woman… just to show that government what sort of mess they’re getting into.
Long nights of passion mixed with disdain, disgust, and self-loathing ensue… we must show the government it’s error… AT ANY COST
3 Likes
Early Kuyler had a similar idea:
But it landed him here, of course:
“I reckon them gays can marry just about whoever they want… As long as my ex stays out in the woods, far away from my ass” --Early Kuyler
In my experience there’s been one other response to the question of infertility: one person told me because children are a requirement of marriage the government should only allow heterosexuals who can have biological children to marry but that doing so would be “too costly and invasive”.
It was only one person, and I give him credit for creativity, but when I pointed out that if children really are a requirement of marriage as he claimed no price would be too great.
He replied, “Shut up, fuck you!”
6 Likes
You could just name your sheep “Polygamy.” That way you can screw Polygamy and have bestiality at the same time.
4 Likes
Or you could restore the connection with adoption service, like jury service, but for married couples, and with hardship exemptions, personality mismatch exemptions, etc. Every kid needing parents would meet several married couples, see how they get along, etc.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
