Christian Integrity Has A Cost!

[melanie]

I don't know quite where to start.
What you are suggesting Jac would do nothing to stop the ills of society, if anything it would take us to a place where the current evils would pale in comparison. To place such restrictions on marraige within today's society would indeed decrease divorce rate, as nobody would get married or at least very few. To suggest that the State should have the right to implement what you suggest is outrageous. far more dangerous to the fabric of society than what we are facing now. Only allowing people to divorce due to adultery or abandonment would never work logistically. There would have to be proof, that would come down to a he said, she said scenario. How about unhappiness, emotional neglect, a father or mother who is neglecting or abusing their children. I'm not talking about beating the child within an inch of its life. But emotional abuse and neglect. Withholding emotional security to a child. Withholding emotional security to your spouse. Is this abandonment? Emotional abandonment? Any person who gets divorced especially when children are involved havn't done so because their spouse hogged the bed, or snored too loudly. Of course people pull the plug to early far too often in marraiges, but that is their right to do so. To take away that right would lead to far more problems than drive thru divorces produce. Would it lessen broken homes? Fatherless children? Adultery? Not to even mention the ramifications of the State having the liberty to refuse marraige liscences based on the sexual ability or inclination to produce children. I mean if a marraige is for the sole purpose of procreation and a spouse is found to not be able to have children after the fact, surely that must be another reason to allow divorce. They are unable to fulfil the sole purpose for the marraige in the first place. To say the purpose of marraige is to produce children by the very way of nature, then the sole purpose of sex is to procreate. It renders sex between loving partners meaningless without the production of children. So by God/nature then one has no purpose to have sex outside the confines of marraige. No sex before marraige. That would be against God and the natural order. Since the State has the right to enforce what is against such order and there is no separation then one should also need to prove virginity upon marraige. I think if the woman on the marraige night was found to have been tampered with then surely that should be grounds for instant annulment. If one follows the same argument.
I think christians are being far too liberal in their opposition to only gay marriages. Since the 'church' has such a stellar history of the natural/Gods order of things especially in relation to marraige then we should be opposing divorce unless under very stringent circumstances, opposing the marraige of those unwilling to have children, opposing the issuing of marriage liscences to anyone impotent, but because of the natural order we could not know that before the marraige takes place, testing would have to be undertaken, issued and regulated by the State. If people just won't follow the natural order of things then it should be imposed on them. For their own good of course and the greater good.

[Jac3510]

I understand your disagreement, mel, but you are wrong about the effects. In fact, the position I am advocating was the position of both Europe and America for pretty much forever. No-fault divorce was not legal in the United States until January 1, 1970. Impotence was regarded as an impediment to marriage that I know at least until 1959, where I found an interesting case in which a New York court annulled a marriage (which means it was never valid) on the grounds that "an offer of marriage by a man is as good as saying that he is potent." In fact, my understanding is that many states still have such laws on the books today. RE refusal to have children, this was absolutely never an issue until contraception because a routine option. When that became common, though, courts suddenly had to deal with the question. I would encourage you to look up Cowen v Cowen (1944), in which the court in England annulled the marriage after the husband continued to refuse to have children, saying,

• We are of the opinion that sexual intercourse cannot be said to be complete when a husband deliberately discontinues the act of intercourse before it has reached its natural termination, or when he artificially prevents that natural termination, which is the passage of the male seed into the body of the woman. To hold otherwise would be to affirm that a marriage is consummated by an act so performed that one of its principal ends, if not the principal end of marriage (the procreation of children), is frustrated

I don't offer these historical examples as proofs that I am right but only that the position that I am defending is the historical position. There were certainly problems that needed to be addressed, particularly in the status of women, in the world before 1970. But what we did was, instead of addressing those issues, destroy the institution of marriage entirely. I shouldn't have to quote for you the terrible statistics over the past fifty years showing the major social decline in that same period, to say nothing of the serious drop in birth rate.

As it turns out, then, the serious social ills do not come from the position I am advocating, but very respectfully, from the position you are advocating. I understand why you defend it as you do. But it having the exact opposite effect you intend for it to have. Again, just food for thought. I know this is tough stuff and that my position isn't popular. But I would submit to you that while not popular, it is MY position that is the historical position, and it is MY position that is logically consistent, and it is MY position that contributes to the good of society. The modern, popular position of marriage as a mere love contract is not only unnatural, but inconsistent when denied to same sex couples, polygamists, and siblings, and has directly contributed to the social and economic downturn of Western culture.

And as an aside, you worry that my position would reduce the marriage rate. Historically, you are incorrect. I would encourage you to look at the marriage rates pre and post 1970. In fact, it turns out that the CURRENT view of marriage as a private love contract is depressing the overall marriage rate. If you want to hear a liberal European lawyer and scholar of family law who makes an honest assessment of the current state of marriage law, I would strongly advise you to take an hour and listen to Divorce Law: A Disaster? by Baroness Deech of Cumnor DBE. In fact, the entire series--there six lectures, I believe, are worth listening to. As I understand people have time constraints to consider (it took me several weeks to get through all six), here are a few highlights she points out:

• According to the ONS, there were only 231,000 marriages in England & Wales in 2007, the lowest total in 112 years.
  
  Historically the divorce rate has been linked to the ease of divorce and changes in divorce law. After legal divorce was introduced in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 there were 24 divorces; at the end of the first world war a few thousand. In 1923 equal divorce rights were given to men and women and the rate climbed again to 60,000 at the end of the second world war. The Divorce Reform Act 1969 pushed the rate up still further to 119,000 in 1972, and 165,000 in 1993. In 2007 the annual rate came down to 128,000 because the numbers choosing to cohabit and not marry had risen and so had the age of marriage.
  
  The statistics in the UK are striking. 14% of couples are cohabitants, up from 9% 10 years ago.*
  
  *Taken from her lecture Cohabitation and the Law

And if that isn't enough, click here for a chart on the declining marriage rate since the 1950s. If your initially assertion were true, we would expect he marriage rate to go UP since my policies were rejected, not down . . . Of course, down is just what we see, and that is because WE redefined marriage away from what God intended it in the mid 1900s. Shame on us.

edit:

If you prefer not to waste a second clicking, he's another chart you might find interesting:



Shows the same thing.

edit2:

Here's another chart from the same source as the above chart that shows the decline in percent of married men (not the marriage rate, mind you) among men age 35-54 in particular. It's measuring from '53 to '08. In the 50s the number was around 70%. Spike in 71 was to 75%. It has dropped steadily now to just under 60%. As a man and as one who thinks the role of men is especially important in the overall shape and virtue of a society, this is very scary to me:



There is a similar chart for women I wont post in the interest of space that puts the percent of married women of all ages at just north of 55% as opposed to around 70% in the 50s. Again, very bad signs, and exactly the opposite of what you seem to be predicting but exactly consistent with my own position. So my view is not only biblical and philosophically sound, it's confirmed by the statistical, empirical evidence as well.

[Jac3510]

BTW, Mel, I hear the sarcasm in the last part of your post . . . let me quote it specifically:

I think christians are being far too liberal in their opposition to only gay marriages. Since the 'church' has such a stellar history of the natural/Gods order of things especially in relation to marraige then we should be opposing divorce unless under very stringent circumstances, opposing the marraige of those unwilling to have children, opposing the issuing of marriage liscences to anyone impotent, but because of the natural order we could not know that before the marraige takes place, testing would have to be undertaken, issued and regulated by the State. If people just won't follow the natural order of things then it should be imposed on them. For their own good of course and the greater good.

But this does not follow from what I wrote (nor does your riff on sex being meaningless if it doesn't produce children. See my last response to Rick on that). Let me quote something I posted elsewhere on the internet in a different context that addresses this concern:

• Consider the debate around the phone tapping programs the government has been involved in. The debate is between the right to privacy (however that is construed) and the state's obligation to protect. It's not hard to recognize that in one society, more surveillance might be necessary than in another, which in practice means that one state might be able to afford greater privacy to its citizens than another. But it is equally obvious that there comes a point at which surveillance becomes so intrusive that it is now absolutely harmful to the common good and is therefore in no way justifiable. By way of analogy of my analogy, a parent may have two children, one virtuous and one vicious. The parent is obligated to protect both but equally obligated to raise the child to be a maure, disciplined person, which requires granting freedom for the child to practice life. It is clear that the protective measures taken for the one would not be appropriately applied to the other, but that even in the case of the vicious, that some measures--even with good intent--would bring harm regardless.
  
  So it should be obvious that when considering how we protect against and prevent evil, it is never as simple as "this is bad, therefore this is forbidden." Some things are outlawed absolutely. Some things may be outlawed in one society and not another given the nature of that society and what it would mean to enforce those proscriptions. In all of this, the goal is to promote virtue and life generally. It is terribly naive and simplistic not to take "the facts on the ground" into account. That is, platitudes rarely provide serious guidance.
  
  The application here should be obvious. Abortion is absolutely prohibited because it is absolutely harmful in myriads of ways. No society should tolerate it for exactly the same reason that no society could tolerate murder or burglary. Some societies might be forced to tolerate some evils, though, such as prostitution (to use Aquinas' example) or even some degree of intrusive surveillance. Yet other societies may not have to tolerate those evils. It all depends on "the facts on the ground," how virtuous the society is, what other regulators they have against such evils, etc.
  
  Look, I come out of a religious background that is fond of pointing out that "all sin is sin." But even I can recognize that just because something is wrong, it does not follow that it has the same detrimental effect on the common good as something else that is wrong, that no two wrongs are equally detrimental to society simply because they are both wrong. And as one of the virtues is prudence, it remains for a virtuous government to be prudent, to be wise, in deciding which acts it will proscribe by law, which ones it will discourage by other means, and which ones it will simply tolerate all the way around--for a very good modern example of this, I invite you to consider the war on drugs; should marijuana be illegal such that to possess it is a imprisonable offense,or should it be decriminalized such that it becomes a civil matter open to civil consequences (e.g., fines), or should it be completely legalized (that is, tolerated)? The answer to that depends, as far as I can see, on your assessment of the effect of the drug vs the effect of the war on the drug (at least as it is currently being prosecuted) on the common good.
  
  In short, don't be so naive. Be realistic. I think it's safe to say that God calls us to it!

So my position on marriage is the correct position, but exactly because our society has become so evil, it may cause more harm by imposing what is right. We may need to move back to the good incrementally.

In short, I appreciate, again, your concern about what I'm saying. But please let's not jump to unnecessary conclusions, okay?

[RickD]

Jac,

Maybe we should bring back the Anti-miscegenation laws. Interracial marriage has been fully legal since 1967.

Do you think interracial marriage should be illegal? It is the historical position, right?

[Jac3510]

I know you are playing, Rick, but it's an importan point you are raising in that it helps me further clarify my own argument.

I am not saying I am right because my position is historical. I am saying that my position is not extreme, that it is, in fact, the historical position, and that the modern position (marriage is a private love contract) represents a movement away from the historical position. The benefit to that is that we can look back over history and see what the effects are on society. As we have moved away from the historical position on marriage to this new position, what do we see? And the answer is not higher marriage (and divorce) rates, but LOWER marriage rates, HIGHER divorce rates, HIGHER cohabitation rates, HIGHER out-of-wedlocks births, HIGHER rates of poverty and relateed crime, etc. You can say, "corrolation is not causation," which is true. But that certainly doesn't mean that there's NOT causation. And since my position predicts things like lower marriage rates and worse economic atmospheres as we move away from marriage, what we see is a confirmed prediction that adds extra weight.

As far as interracial marriage goes, this is a really good example of a position that was totally theological and had absolutely no grounds in natural law. There is absolutely zero evidence that an interracial marriage violates natural law. The arguments back then were that God wanted the races separate usually with an appeal to the mark of Cain. But all of that is clearly absurd and based on an incorrect interpretation of Scripture. In fact, we can see now that such interpretations were little more than eisogesis based on a cultural racism that was fairly universal. Gay rights groups want to say the same thing is true about our interpretation of anti-gay passages in the Bible, but that fails as a comparison on two counts. First, the anti-gay passages (to use that term anyway) really say what we say that they say. You can't explain them away! And second, even if you could (and I emphasize, you cannot--which means that we are dealing with exegesis and NOT eisogesis), my argument for marriage would still follow from rational argument with no appeal to Scripture.

In short, the laws against interracial marriage were always unjust. They had no roots in exegesis, only eisogesis; they had no roots in natural law or rational argument, only a general culture of racism. The laws against same sex marriage were never unjust. They have deep roots in both exegesis of Scripture and natural and rational argument. As such, we can't dismiss them by appealing to the comparision to interracial marriage.

[melanie]

I understand your disagreement, mel, but you are wrong about the effects. In fact, the position I am advocating was the position of both Europe and America for pretty much forever. No-fault divorce was not legal in the United States until January 1, 1970. Impotence was regarded as an impediment to marriage that I know at least until 1959, where I found an interesting case in which a New York court annulled a marriage (which means it was never valid) on the grounds that "an offer of marriage by a man is as good as saying that he is potent." In fact, my understanding is that many states still have such laws on the books today. RE refusal to have children, this was absolutely never an issue until contraception because a routine option. When that became common, though, courts suddenly had to deal with the question. I would encourage you to look up Cowen v Cowen (1944), in which the court in England annulled the marriage after the husband continued to refuse to have children, saying,

• We are of the opinion that sexual intercourse cannot be said to be complete when a husband deliberately discontinues the act of intercourse before it has reached its natural termination, or when he artificially prevents that natural termination, which is the passage of the male seed into the body of the woman. To hold otherwise would be to affirm that a marriage is consummated by an act so performed that one of its principal ends, if not the principal end of marriage (the procreation of children), is frustrated

I don't offer these historical examples as proofs that I am right but only that the position that I am defending is the historical position. There were certainly problems that needed to be addressed, particularly in the status of women, in the world before 1970. But what we did was, instead of addressing those issues, destroy the institution of marriage entirely. I shouldn't have to quote for you the terrible statistics over the past fifty years showing the major social decline in that same period, to say nothing of the serious drop in birth rate.

As it turns out, then, the serious social ills do not come from the position I am advocating, but very respectfully, from the position you are advocating. I understand why you defend it as you do. But it having the exact opposite effect you intend for it to have. Again, just food for thought. I know this is tough stuff and that my position isn't popular. But I would submit to you that while not popular, it is MY position that is the historical position, and it is MY position that is logically consistent, and it is MY position that contributes to the good of society. The modern, popular position of marriage as a mere love contract is not only unnatural, but inconsistent when denied to same sex couples, polygamists, and siblings, and has directly contributed to the social and economic downturn of Western culture.

And as an aside, you worry that my position would reduce the marriage rate. Historically, you are incorrect. I would encourage you to look at the marriage rates pre and post 1970. In fact, it turns out that the CURRENT view of marriage as a private love contract is depressing the overall marriage rate. If you want to hear a liberal European lawyer and scholar of family law who makes an honest assessment of the current state of marriage law, I would strongly advise you to take an hour and listen to Divorce Law: A Disaster? by Baroness Deech of Cumnor DBE. In fact, the entire series--there six lectures, I believe, are worth listening to. As I understand people have time constraints to consider (it took me several weeks to get through all six), here are a few highlights she points out:

• According to the ONS, there were only 231,000 marriages in England & Wales in 2007, the lowest total in 112 years.
  
  Historically the divorce rate has been linked to the ease of divorce and changes in divorce law. After legal divorce was introduced in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 there were 24 divorces; at the end of the first world war a few thousand. In 1923 equal divorce rights were given to men and women and the rate climbed again to 60,000 at the end of the second world war. The Divorce Reform Act 1969 pushed the rate up still further to 119,000 in 1972, and 165,000 in 1993. In 2007 the annual rate came down to 128,000 because the numbers choosing to cohabit and not marry had risen and so had the age of marriage.
  
  The statistics in the UK are striking. 14% of couples are cohabitants, up from 9% 10 years ago.*
  
  *Taken from her lecture Cohabitation and the Law

And if that isn't enough, click here for a chart on the declining marriage rate since the 1950s. If your initially assertion were true, we would expect he marriage rate to go UP since my policies were rejected, not down . . . Of course, down is just what we see, and that is because WE redefined marriage away from what God intended it in the mid 1900s. Shame on us.

edit:

If you prefer not to waste a second clicking, he's another chart you might find interesting:



Shows the same thing.

edit2:

Here's another chart from the same source as the above chart that shows the decline in percent of married men (not the marriage rate, mind you) among men age 35-54 in particular. It's measuring from '53 to '08. In the 50s the number was around 70%. Spike in 71 was to 75%. It has dropped steadily now to just under 60%. As a man and as one who thinks the role of men is especially important in the overall shape and virtue of a society, this is very scary to me:



There is a similar chart for women I wont post in the interest of space that puts the percent of married women of all ages at just north of 55% as opposed to around 70% in the 50s. Again, very bad signs, and exactly the opposite of what you seem to be predicting but exactly consistent with my own position. So my view is not only biblical and philosophically sound, it's confirmed by the statistical, empirical evidence as well.

Jac, it is important to recognise what I stated not only in regards to my argument but your response. I never argued the effects or repercussions of no-fault in the 70's or rather just the ill effects on society based solely on divorce. My post was directly in response to what you stated which was nil grounds for marriage based on the inability to produce or the desire to so, divorce was one aspect of what you put forward.
I said

To place such restrictions in today's environment

This is an important aspect of what I am putting forward. If we were to look to the past and think what should have or could have been that would be a different discussion, but we are discussing the relevance and practicality in the world we are living in today. I think if society as a whole could travel back and change laws, decisions, public opinion we would spend no time moving forward but correcting the past, again and again. That is human nature, flawed and working off the back foot so to speak.

I think we would agree on a few things. The 'downfall' happened long before no fault divorce in the seventies occured and that the degradation of society can be pin pointed to many things, drive thru divorces, definitely an aspect in a melting pot of so many.

Firstly when you speak of impotence, the most common cause for young men, as this a problem that generally affects older men is brain injury and spine injury. This is important when discussing marriage and impotence, as few men of marrying age are impotent. Just recently I have read of 2 cases, I was completely taken aback and in complete admiration for these young women who stood by their partners. One a brain injury and the other a Quadriplegic, Both proposed marriage and both accepted. Both cases were under 25. Their lives turned upside down. Their sexual lives completely rewritten, family dreams also but artificial insemination a valid option. The love they showed regardless of impotence was inspiring. It could be argued this is an emotional response but this is the real story of young impotent men. They secured their love in something defined way beyond sexual pleasure and/or procreation but in loyalty and heartfelt, life long despite the odds love. They deserve a marriage certificate more than anyone. No state or government or God could or should ever deny this Union.

Which brings me to an entirely diffenrent point.
Democracy.
A system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives.
Whilst as christians we understand that the will and law of God is paramount to stability and happiness of society we must also understand that majority do not agree. We live in a secular society. Any delusions otherwise have been recently snuffed out. That is the reality we live in.
To prepose otherwise is a fight we cannot win. We were never meant to win that fight. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We live for the Kingdom of Christ that is too come. As great a concept of democracy is it will be our undoing.
Here in Aussie land, majority support Gay marriage, I hope it goes to referendum because I believe that is how a democracy should be run, but even though I would vote 'no' the writing is already on the wall, it would be in vain. The people have spoken, the majority of spoken. The people want, they will voice and will vote accordingly.
It would be no different if the people voted for or against no fault divorce. We know what the outcome would be. People decide, wrongly or rightly but we have no other way. It is the very best political system to date. It is flawed. But the best we have got untill Jesus returns and sets law to the spirtual as it should have always been.

Somewhere along the way Elvis Presley swung his hips and parents uproared saying it was the downfall of the youth, we look back and laugh, now I can't even watch Saturday morning video hits with my kids because it's like soft porn. In the 50's we couldn't talk about sex, now sex sells everything. It's bombared 24/7. Music, film, sport, media.
We live in a time when previously our parents told us how lucky we were to now when as parents we wish we could rewind despite other advancements.

We cannot turn back. We must live and bring the gospel to those relevant within the times we are living. We live in a secular enviroment, trying to or wishing that people should adopt a lifestyle or ideal that has long passed is not practical or ultimately beneficial. This is what God by prophecy said would come to pass. We should not live for the world and we cannot strive for what could of or should have been but rather what we are dealing with now, A world that rejects God. Render unto the world what is the worlds and live for Christ.

[abelcainsbrother]

The problem I see coming because of the falling away that was prophecies to happen in the last days before the Antichrist can be revealed,but the thing that bothers me the most is seeing Christians water down God's word to accommodate society corruption and evil,as we move forward I think this is one of our biggest issues as Christians we cannot and must not lose our saltyness or dim our lights because of the world despite what persecution we may face.

I see Christians watering down God's word as several Christian denominations have accepted gay marriages and changed their by- laws but the good news is people are leaving these church's that do it. The Baptists,Assemblies of God and a few others have not and are pretty steady,the Assemblies of God do most of the missionary work now and have surpassed Baptists from what I know and have picked up from reading.