</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I wanted to respond to your questions and what you wrote.... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I appreciate you taking the time and I hope you do not mind me moving this to a different thread. We had strayed quite a bit and at length from the original topic and it was commented upon so I feel it might be best to reply in a separate place.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Which was the point of my original post on this thread. I believe that these laws must be toughtened, and penalties stricter, for this behavior. Because, as I said before, I have never heard of a divorce where it was nobody's fault. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Before I would contemplate such an action, I suppose I’d want an investigation as to why the original laws and statues were changed. The laws used to be different and are categorically being repealed and changed. I do not necessarily assume that those who advocated for the change had nefarious motives and I think I’d want to fully understand two things 1.) what the original intent of the change was and 2.) whether that original intent was satisfied.

If not, I would be more inclined to say “Put them back how they were and try again.”

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> VI. Chronic or incurable disease that's contagious or hereditary; or incurable impotence
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Uhm. Ouch.

I guess if that is grounds for divorce I’d submit those cases are a ‘no fault’ situation unless you’d fault someone for having an incurable hereditary disease. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Exactly!!!!!!!!! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, I’ll be honest with you. I’m not unilaterally opposed TO adultery laws. I do think that any penalty applied should be applied to both of the guilty parties, though. In other words, if a wife were to sue an OW (or a H an OM) for alienation of affection, then I believe that whatever penalty applied should be applied to BOTH affair partners. If the original partners (BS and WS) are still married, then any penalties assessed to the WS should be placed in a special judgment and given to the BS should there ever be a future divorce.

Of course, that has nothing to do with how any laws might be written – and would be a long shot – but it APPEALS to my sense of justice. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Yes. That is what my argument was about. That no-fault divorces, even in a fault state, should nto be allowed. Period. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You seem to make an exception if there is a mutual decision to divorce lower down. If that is the case, then perhaps ‘no fault’ rules should apply.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> A marriage should be a marriage until the contract is broken by one party and the other seeks legal recourse. And by breaking that contract, the guilty party should have no claim to any marital property, custody of minor children, and should have to face some kind of penalties. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The penalties you describe seem to be sufficient.

Aren’t you concerned about what type of desperate behavior might be incited by those type of penalties? For example, the original story which prompted the thread was about a man who was so ..er.. distraught, enraged, etc, about his wife finding out that he MURDERED not only his previous lover who was pregnant with his 7 month old fetus but her 7 YEAR OLD child. It’s not even clear whether there was really an ‘affair’ as it seems that their relationship might have ended prior to the marriage to his current wife. Undoubtedly, this guy has some issues to resolve (like all those loose screws in his head) but I worry about what desperate acts might be inspired by people wanting to get out of what they perceive to be an irresolvable situation.

Unfortunately, not all people have the presence of mind to actually invest their energy towards WORKING to make things better. I think we’d have a lot less problems as a society if they did.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Well, good questions. All I can say is that this nation was created under the Judeo-Christian God and teachings. Our rights, our basis in law, all stem from our acknowledgement that said rights come from Him. So, we go to the bedrock of this nation, which is the Declaration of Independence, and it outlines where our rights and laws are based. Rightly or wrongly, that is our system of government, whether a person believes in that God or not. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m not convinced that Judeo-Christian teachings are all that unique. For example, you mentioned that it is a good idea to have laws against murdering people. Well, that is hardly a concept that is unique to Christians. Most societies prior to the advent of Christianity had some laws addressing murder – though the definitions of ‘who’ could be murdered often differed. Those definitions have changed over time in our own country, as well. Most societies also frowned on theft and had some form of marriage, though it may not always have resembled what we have today.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> The argument that the Bible has contradictions in it is an old one. But it isnt true. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I won’t argue this with you because you obviously know more about it than I do. I mentioned that mostly because that has been my understanding of why there are so many different Churches out there. Each of them has some slightly different interpretation of scripture than the others but they all seem to have certain, basic agreements.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> For the unbeliever, I would just say that you should not get caught up with what Christians are doing. We are humand, just like everyone else. We sin, we get things wrong. We are not perfect. You see, in the end, it wont be Christians that a person has to present their life to. Each person will stand alone in front of Jesus, and it wont matter what a person believed, or how much confusion there was. Because God is not the author of confusion...that comes from Satan. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*chuckles* I don’t worry all that much. I do worry about some who seem to regard me with distrust or even anger for professing to be an atheist. I tread very softly in this area as I do understand that it is a very sensitive topic for a lot of people. Differences can be daunting.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> But what I would like to see is us model our laws after what God has taught us. Thous shalt not murder is a pretty good thing to copy. Thou shalt not commit adultery is another. Honor your father and mother. You get my point. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Many of those laws predated Christianity and exist in other cultures which are not predominantly Christian. If you went to India and started indiscriminately killing people and stealing their stuff, I imagine they’d have a few penalties for you.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Yes, on a theological basis, I can agree with this. but on a societal basis and a legal basis, I cannot. Society limits many wrongful behaviors. What about someone that wants 15 wives. Who is he hurting? Why is that illegal? Why would he go to jail for being married to 15 women? Because this society finds that behavior to be wrong. And who says it is wrong? Well, in this society, we based that rule on the fact that God said it is wrong. So, I would like to see divorce made as hard as God said it should be. That it only be allowed in the cases of adultery, abuse and the like. If you dont want a life long contract, dont get married. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, I respect your opinion but mine differs some. For example, I can see some benefits to an expansion of what constitutes the CIVIL definition of marriage. Civilly, being married grants you certain rights of survivorship, next of kin, the ability to file your taxes together <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> , etc. These are benefits which really don’t have much to do with spirituality but are recognition of people who band together and call themselves a family.

Our society has changed and grown more mobile throughout the last century. As a result, I think families are more fragile than they once were. There used to be a large, extended family base to help with child rearing and other support tasks. It takes a lot of resources to raise a family and children. I do think the isolation of the nuclear family has eroded a lot of the support base that families depended on for centuries and has caused a lot of the additional stress on couples and children in our society today. One method to address that (though I admit it might cause even more problems than it solves) might be to allow people to band together in fellowships of expanded families for support. I’m not saying that’s the BEST way – just that there might be benefits in considering ideas outside of what we’re used to. I will say this. I DON’T think that would work in our culture. I do think it might work (and work quite well) in a DIFFERENT culture. And, that might be a difference between being concerned with God’s law and not being concerned about it.

Although I am a bit confused about one thing that perhaps you will answer. Didn’t several prominent kings in the Bible have many, many wives? Didn’t Solomon have something like 1,000 wives? (Well, maybe not that many, but it seems it was quite a lot.) If he did, then I think we can ALL agree he was a very, very BRAVE man. *grins*

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> How in the world does it make it MORE viscious? It already is viscious. The only way it could get worse is if we just put the husband and wife in a ring and let them hack each other to death. It wont clog the state courts...DIVORCE is clogging the state courts. You make most of them illegal and guess what? A lot less divorces!! Go talk to most lawyers out there. Most make half their money off providing divorce services. The only guys that win in a divorce is the attorneys. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, I can think of a couple of ways. One is if a spouse becomes so desperate to leave that the only way s/he can get out of a marriage is TO CHEAT or TO HIT her/his spouse. I suppose it’s not a common event, but I always hold out hope that if it ever got to a point where I wanted to either commit violence or adultery, I’d walk away first. Having that option removed disturbs me.

Another, is the gathering of evidence to bolster a case. For example, what do you do if a man beats his wife up and then she goes and has an affair? Ugh. They’d both have to present evidence to see who ‘wins’ the court case. Ugly.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> How so? If there is no process, how can it be more gut wrenching? Again, if you dont want the life long commitment, dont make it in the first place. And if you want out...then expect to be penalized for it. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You know, I’m not actually all that opposed to that type of change with one caveat. Before such a change could be made, all existing marriages must be declared null and void and people should have to be re-married with that set of rules. Either that, or those rules only apply from that time forward. I don’t think changing the rules mid-stream is fair or just.

In other words, I’d want the opportunity to indeed decide if that is what I want without being grandfathered into that set of rules. I am pretty happy with my relationship and plan to live with my husband for the rest of my life. But, it would BOTHER me tremendously to have no other options beside abusing him or committing adultery if for some reason I decided to leave. If that was my only option, I think I’d choose cohabitation. I suppose if the goal is to cause people to re-evaluate their relationships that might do it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Do I agree that gay unions should be allowed? Nope. For Biblical reasons? Sure...but that isnt all. In a legal and societal sense, we regulate many behaviors. We regulate marriage. We promote marriage between a husband and wife because it is good for society. It provides off spring, a home to raise the children and instruction. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Many marriages in our country are childless (like mine). There will be no children in my marriage. I don’t believe that makes it any less of a marriage than one that has children.

I am biologically unable to have children due to a defect (heh, in Mexico he’d have cause to divorce me, how nice). I don’t think that should prevent our marriage from being sanctioned by the state. Similarly, two men or two women are biologically unable to bear children. I don’t think that should prevent their marriages from being sanctioned by the state.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> But that is all for a different discussion. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oh, I don’t care what you call it. If you don’t want to call it a marriage, then that works for me! I might actually have gone FOR a civil union rather than a marriage if that was offered to me.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Well, I doubt this will happen, because like I said before, the State has a vested interest in regulating marriage and divorce due to its societal and financial impacts. But I would like to see the Church have the power to officiate over divorces as officials of the State, just as church officials are given sanction by the state to marry people. In this way, two Christians that wanted to divorce would not clog up the court system. They would have to go before their church and the church would rule on that. And as a Christian, the Bible says that is the way we are SUPPOSED to do it. Shoot, we let Judge Wapner on TV make legally binding decisions. Why not let the churches do so also? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*grins* I know it’s highly unlikely. I think it’s too bad. It seems that would fix a lot of problems and cause less confusion for those of us who aren’t scholars of religion.

And, you're right, isn't it somehow obscene that we have Judge Judy, et al, able to decide court cases?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Studies do show children are better off in a home of conflict (not including abuse) than in a home of divorce. Most studies show this to be true for the children. I know that goes against most thinking...but the studies have proven that the children are better of in an intact family. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, I won’t speak on this because I am hardly an expert on children. But, I do worry about how the future of that will pan out. Children will learn dysfunctional marital patterns from parents who no longer wish to remain together. It’s a concern.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> They say no. And the lawyer says "Well, you dont have a case." And it doesnt go to court. No legal standing to file. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Argh! And then what happens to that couple?

I suppose that might be ‘better’ in terms of increasing the number of people who remain married but there is NOTHING in place to make marriage better. I’d hate marriage to become a prison or a trap for so many people. *sighs* Maybe it would be for the best, but I would feel so much COMPASSION for people who are unhappy and have no other options but to bear with it endlessly or decide to do something terrible to their spouse so they can escape.

Doesn’t that strike you as dismal?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I am not advocating prison for people gettign a divorce...because they wont be able to get a divorce, except in the instances I mentioned. What are they going to do, get a "back-alley divorce?" </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, I guess if they get desperate enough all they have to do is physically attack their partner or find someone who is willing to have sex with them. Perhaps if they inflict enough cruelty, their spouse will take them to court and dissolve the marriage.

That would be the equivalent of a ‘back alley’ divorce wouldn’t it? Back alley abortions are sought by women (young girls mostly) who are so desperate that they are willing to risk their LIVES to terminate a pregnancy. It’s sad, really. People who get that desperate are usually the ones who are least likely to objectively evaluate better options.

I would hate to see that happen even once. Frankly, I think I’d prefer prison as an option.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> On the issue of adultery, there should be penalties...especially financial. Loss of all marital property. Loss of custody of minor children. Alimony to be paid to the BS. Child support for the children. Now, I would love them to add what we have in the military and that is the judge also can order the WS not to see or talk to the OP. Now, if they do....THEN there is jail time for contempt of court! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Mmmm… loss of all marital property seems a bit extreme. Also, shouldn’t custody be decided based on the best interest of the children? Just because a spouse is betrayed doesn’t necessarily imply that is the best parent for the children.

Ordering the WS not to see or talk to the OP would be interesting, but what would be the point? After that point, the WS is divorced and a free agent. So, unless the OP is also married, how would such an order be enforced? It’s unlikely the OP would complain and hopefully the BS would go on to rebuild a new life.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Correct. But just because there will always be murderers doesnt mean we stop putting murderers on death row. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Heh. True.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> That it wasnt the government being involved in religion, but religion being involved in government. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Fair enough. There are blessings said during congressional sessions, etc.

I suppose what I meant was that the government was not to discriminate nor endorse a particular religion in order that no religion be allowed enough power to persecute others.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> And even though it is based in that faith, it has provided a nation that people of all faiths (or no faith) can live their life. But each nation has a moral code. This one is based on Christian teachings. If someone doesnt like that because they have a different faith, they have but two choices. They can live here and adhere to their faith. And if their faith intereferes with the laws of this nation, they will have to change or move. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I disagree.

I believe a third option is to speak out and advocate for change in accordance with their beliefs. This nation is a melting pot of many different faiths and cultures. All of the people are welcome to come to the table and voice their opinions and PROMOTE change.

Many of the most profound and important changes in our nation have come from people who didn’t just quietly live and adapt or leave and go somewhere else. Instead, they cared enough to SPEAK OUT about their grievances. Look at the changes we’ve made in our moral code since the days of our founding! Today, a white, black, asian and Hispanic child all sit in the same classroom and get an EQUAL education. Today, women vote, own their own property, and have an equal and important voice in the way our country is run!

Yes, that ability to change the moral code probably causes as many problems as it solves.. but look at what we’ve been able to accomplish because we DO NOT live in a country where the only options are to either shut up or move.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Some may not like it. Some may want homosexual "marriages." But that isnt the moral background of this nation. Right or wrong, this nation believes marriage is a certain way and was set-up that way. But unlike many nations, those that believe in homosexual marriages, for example, have recourses available to them. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I believe those people have a right to try to change the government in accordance to their beliefs. At the same time, those opposed have the same right to oppose it. In this country, we have the right to speak our mind and to use all peaceful means to lobby for change if we feel it is necessary.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> You know, I have no problem with this. Shoot, many Christians have no concept of this. You should be commended for understanding all of this!! Many Christians do not get all of this. I do pray that the Lord will meet you one day and you will accept Him as your friend. But, I have no qualms of you making your decision based on truth and based on the fact that you know everything involved.


This has been friendly and I do like the discussion. Again, I do pray that the Lord finds you and that one day your bi-line changes to "friendly neighborhood bond-servant of Jesus Christ." But until then, I look forward to further discussions. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, I thank you. I have been given the information but I have to say that I simply lack belief. I see how important it is to many, many people and I will say that I have no animosity towards Christians. Well, ok, maybe a little towards those who tell me I believe all kinds of nonsense when I tell them I’m an atheist, but that is not Christianity, that’s just people.

I’ve spent some time (not as much as a faithful follower, I imagine) exploring the wonder that is Christianity and there is much inspired beauty there. I do recognize that there is great value in Christianity for those who believe. I imagine there is just as much value for those who follow other religions.

People have often asked me why I am an atheist and my answer is always: because I do not believe (think) that a God exists. I don’t know how or why people COME to this belief, but if I search deep down, I just don’t think it’s true. I don’t think that will ever change – and I do have some ideas about how things work – but who knows. Maybe someday it will.

In either case, I appreciate your warm thoughts in my direction and accept them in the kind spirit in which you give them. For my part, I have no ‘truth’ to impart so I’ll just say that I hope your belief gives you great joy all the days of your life.

Your friendly, neighborhood atheist,

Mys