Reply With Quote
Just another way folks can act covanenter than thou.
[QUOTE=jochhejaam]I like to think God has a sense of humor, and finds redundancies like "Covenant Marriage" to be humorous. I'm more comfortable with that than I am with thinking it makes Him angry.They're vows with either ceremony, so the marriage vow is a mockery?
And you failed to address your observation of why God is up there laughing at someones desire to make a stonger commitment to marriage.
If "Covenant Marriage" is the new standard for a lifetime commitment of marriage, what is a "Non-Coventant Marriage," or, as we currently call it, "Marriage"?That makes no sense. Seeing how this covenant is entered into strictly by choice, explain how it "damages" the sanc y of marriage.
You misunderstood. You are buying it by thinking it will somehow strengthen families, reduce crime or uphold the sanc y of Marriage. Since it is Conservative Christians who are so bent on making sure the term "Marriage" is kept pure from any secular influences, I'm surprised at how comfortable they are with your representatives creating "Levels" of Marriage. I don't recall the Scripture in the Bible that differentiates "Marriage" from "Covenant Marriage."Between 1 and 3 percent of couples getting married take advantage of this, and you label that with a "you guys are buying into it?
And please provide the data to support your assertion that "conservative Christians" are the ones taking advantage of this covenant.
Just another way folks can act covanenter than thou.
[QUOTE=Spurminator]
I have no misunderstanding of the issue, and where, oh where have I insinuated that it will strengthen families or reduce crime?You misunderstood. You are buying it by thinking it will somehow strengthen families, reduce crime or uphold the sanc y of Marriage.
Surprised? Wow! You're kidding right? What's astounding to me is a Brother being bent on the concept of voluntarily strengthening the commitment of marriage through a covenant! Especially when if the legislation passes it's entered into striclty on a voluntary basis.Since it is Conservative Christians who are so bent on making sure the term "Marriage" is kept pure from any secular influences, I'm surprised at how comfortable they are with your representatives creating "Levels" of Marriage.
I would strongly suggest that the Bible would be more in line with a stronger commitment as opposed to one that's easily disposed of. Would you disagree with that?I don't recall the Scripture in the Bible that differentiates "Marriage" from "Covenant Marriage."It appears to me that you are at odds with God over the matter of entering (it's voluntary!) a strong marriage covenant."I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel (Malachi 2:16).
I don't know about you, but I don't need special human laws to enter into a strong marriage covenant.
Then I really want to know what the point is.
So, basically you support this initiative because there's no reason not to? Super. Should the Government oversee Covenant hing too? We could have 10% of our salary automatically redirected to a church of our choice. I mean, it would be voluntary...
Your Government is redefining Marriage and you're okay with it. That's fine, but don't start quoting Scripture when the Gay Marriage issue comes up again.Surprised? Wow! You're kidding right? What's astounding to me is a Brother being bent on the concept of voluntarily strengthening the commitment of marriage through a covenant! Especially when if the legislation passes it's entered into striclty on a voluntary basis.
I would suggest God expects us to be held accountable by Him and by His Church for the marital commitments we have made, not by man-made authority.I would strongly suggest that the Bible would be more in line with a stronger commitment as opposed to one that's easily disposed of. Would you disagree with that? It appears to me that you are at odds with God over the matter of entering (it's voluntary!) a strong marriage covenant.
I'm anxious to hear some defense of this proposition that amounts to a little more than "Why Not?"
I think He - in his divine power - will not allow this bill to become law, just as He enjoys His cheerleaders with non-legislated routines.
This is a bill that is taking paper from bills which could do so much more to better this state - and that's why people should be upset.
Lame argument.
This is about options.
You can retain your regular marriage.
It's about big government. Buncha Lib'rals.This is about options.
Options are fine. If some people want a statutory covenant marriage, great. I think it is useless because my wife and I are committed to one another under God's authority, not man's. If other people think a "covenant marriage" adds something, then fine. It doesn't hurt much of anything.
But joch insinuated that anybody who doesn't think statutory covenant marriage is a wonderful idea must be against strong marriages and must be in opposition to God, which was patently ridiculous and warranted a rebuttal.
Seriously.
If you get upset at the thought of legislators wasting paper, don't visit Austin or you will spontaneously combust.
Nope, me neither Stout. My commitment to my wife is based on a personal code of ethics. It's just that I have no problem whatsoever with someone that wishes to make a strong commitment to marriage via a covenant.
It was a misguided rebuttal on your part Stout, and totally unwarranted because I didn't insinuate that at all.
My contentions were with Spurminator's outright condemnation of the covenant, and his notion that God laughs at something that stresses commitment to marriage.
That combined with the fact that someone would get all up in arms about something that's 100% voluntary.
[QUOTE]Oops, you forgot to address the ridiculous charge. Where did I state this?
Outright condemnation? Up in arms? I think you're misreading my tone, Joch.
You won't see me protesting in the streets if this ever gains legs. If it happens, it happens. I just think it's a stupid and pointless idea that SHOULD insult people's intelligence, but this isn't the first time I would say that about a proposal.
So, what will it do?
I assumed you believed it because you are defending the idea of legally-enforced covenant marriage. I assumed that one would only defend a proposed law if he felt it benefitted society in some way. If I assumed wrong, I will own up to that. But in that case, I'd like to hear what value you think this law would bring to society.Where did I state this?
All I've heard from you is, essentially, "What's the big deal?"
Even though I disagree with Phenomanul's take, at least he presented reasoning to support such a measure.
By all means join in CD, but I would hope that your questions would be a little less vague.
Thanks
(gotta leave for one of those Christmas dinner parties)
What will this law accomplish?
What is its purpose?
Why should there be two teirs of marriage?
I agree with all three of these questions.
1. nothing
2. So that some couples can argue that they're more in love than others.
3. So that typical marriage divorce rates will drop below 50% and covenant marriage divorce rates will make up for that.
1) It will create a new kind of legal marriage arrangement which is more difficult to get out of.
2) It may appeal to people who disagree with the concept of no-fault divorce and want to set a different example.
3) I don't know. It doesn't really matter all that much.
My question is what is the desired end result?
Fewer divorces?
Do all state initiatives have to have tangible social impact?
I think initiatives that redefine marriage probably should have such an impact.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
