Religion and LGBTQ

[Laura Corin]

How do I feel?  I feel that it is between the person and God. 

 

He knows if he is in sin or not for his actions. The conscience combined with biblical truth is a powerful force.  If so, he needs to make it right insofar as possible. Obviously, if people have remarried others, it's not going to be restored. 

 

I haven't seen any sort of official process like you describe.  I have seen people publicly repent of things of their own volition during times people decided to share things, this being among them (and often drug use or other things from whom the Lord set them free).   

 

So a divorced straight relationship could be either sinful or not - you wouldn't know.  The straight person is given the benefit of the doubt and their actions are left to their own conscience and interpretation of scripture.  Whereas the gay person is told just to stop doing that stuff, whatever their conscience or biblical understanding?  And to not expect to be offered the security of secular marriage?

 

Perhaps, for the sake of equality, the secular straight divorce laws should be rewritten to allow scriptural divorce only.  Or perhaps you already advocate that, but it's less at the top of your mind.

[Scarlett]

Okay. Thanks. That clears it up for me.

 

How do you and your church feel in general about divorced people who remarry? Is there are process of declaring publicly or to an official the reason for the divorce so that they are accepted into the church and not suspected of adultery?

You didn't ask me but I will answer.....in my faith, in order for remarriage to take place there will need to be evidence of adultery. Sometimes it is obvious.......my xh admitted it in open court in front of many witnesses including several leaders from my congregation. My dhs xw wasn't as cooperative, even bough she was living with a man the all clear for my Dh to remarry was a little sticky. Usually it works out these things don't stay hidden for lomg.

[Joker]

I still can't wrap my head around the idea that any Christian thinks God is cool with divorce and remarriage due to adultery but not if your spouse beats the crap out of you. It's completely ridiculous.

[Charlie]

She was being snotty. Pardon- it sure seems like it, if not intentional.

 

Maybe so. Still, the warning allowed me time to quick BBQ a baby to the great god atheismo before continuing to read, lest the words lead me to faith like Paul warned. Once safe from any interfering supernatural juju, I read a post that illustrated my point rather nicely - despite years of trying to justify being lgbt as a personal or social problem, many Christians have yet to come up with any reason to denounce such behavior other than it offends God.

[Scarlett]

I still can't wrap my head around the idea that any Christian thinks God is cool with divorce and remarriage due to adultery but not if your spouse beats the crap out of you. It's completely ridiculous.

That is because you don't view marriage the way God does. Adultery voids the marriage.

 

God does not expect anyone to continue living with an abusive person.

[Rosie_0801]

God does not expect anyone to continue living with an abusive person.

 

Then it is a shame that society makes it safer to stay than leave in so many cases.

[Joker]

That is because you don't view marriage the way God does. Adultery voids the marriage.

 

God does not expect anyone to continue living with an abusive person.

Yeah, you feel they can leave but never remarry. I don't agree and I don't think God does either. Edited January 27, 2017 by Joker

[Scarlett]

Then it is a shame that society makes it safer to stay than leave in so many cases.

I agree society is that way....doesn't mean God agrees or approves.

[Scarlett]

Yeah, you feel they can leave but never remarry. I don't agree and I don't think God does either.

Usually, the scriptural freedom comes, but I would be ok with never remarrying if it meant I could escape an abusive marriage.

[Greta]

That is because you don't view marriage the way God does. Adultery voids the marriage.

 

God does not expect anyone to continue living with an abusive person.

But God does expect you to stay bound to an abusive person for the rest of your life? Nope. Not buying it. Abuse voids a marriage too. Churches ruled by love, rather than legalism, recognize that fact.

[Scarlett]

But God does expect you to stay bound to an abusive person for the rest of your life? Nope. Not buying it. Abuse voids a marriage too. Churches ruled by love, rather than legalism, recognize that fact.

Bound to? Hmm. I would not consider a divorce without remarriage to be bound to first marriage. I can disconnect without reconnecting,

[Greta]

Bound to? Hmm. I would not consider a divorce without remarriage to be bound to first marriage. I can disconnect without reconnecting,

Not allowed to remarry sounds still bound to me.

[Scarlett]

Not allowed to remarry sounds still bound to me.

Really? Not to me. At all.

[Corraleno]

So a young woman in her early 20s, who married a man who beat her, could divorce him, but would have to spend the next 60-some years of her life without the loving companionship of a spouse, or the ability to have children. Because although God will generously allow her to divorce the man who beat the crap out of her, she will be punished for the rest of her life for the sin of being a victim.

 

How very kind and benevolent.

[Greta]

So a young woman in her early 20s, who married a man who beat her, could divorce him, but would have to spend the next 60-some years of her life without the loving companionship of a spouse, or the ability to have children. Because although God will generously allow her to divorce the man who beat the crap out of her, she will be punished for the rest of her life for the sin of being a victim.

 

How very kind and benevolent.

Completely ridiculous, and what's worse, there's another ugly side to this view that abuse is not a basis for divorce: abused women often get counseled to stay with the husband, to pray, to forgive him, to be more submissive so that she won't make him angry. It's disgusting.

[Joker]

So a young woman in her early 20s, who married a man who beat her, could divorce him, but would have to spend the next 60-some years of her life without the loving companionship of a spouse, or the ability to have children. Because although God will generously allow her to divorce the man who beat the crap out of her, she will be punished for the rest of her life for the sin of being a victim.

 

How very kind and benevolent.

Yeah. Scarlet and I have discussed this topic before. What you described above was my mom. Fortunately, she didn't believe as some here do and married my dad and had four children. It means no sense that the God I know would think as some here do. I think those that act like it's no big deal were married for years and had kids already do they really don't get it. Edited January 27, 2017 by Joker

[Rosie_0801]

Completely ridiculous, and what's worse, there's another ugly side to this view that abuse is not a basis for divorce: abused women often get counseled to stay with the husband, to pray, to forgive him, to be more submissive so that she won't make him angry. It's disgusting.

 

But until the courts get a bit of DV training into their educations, this counselling might still be safer than other options.

 

 

I *am* bound to my ex while dd is a minor. If I were to remarry, and my ex felt like taking me to court again, my husband would be considered a financially interested person. That would mean I could not get legal aid and I certainly wouldn't have time to save up enough.

[Scarlett]

But until the courts get a bit of DV training into their educations, this counselling might still be safer than other options.

 

 

I *am* bound to my ex while dd is a minor. If I were to remarry, and my ex felt like taking me to court again, my husband would be considered a financially interested person. That would mean I could not get legal aid and I certainly wouldn't have time to save up enough.

 

 

And that is a legal thing.  

 

So too I was legally bound to my XH after divorce....he owed me alimony until I remarried.....

[Rosie_0801]

And that is a legal thing.  

 

Legal things suck.

 

Though alimony isn't a form of abuse. 

 

Or maybe I just haven't enough imagination to think of how it can be off the top of my head.

[Greta]

But until the courts get a bit of DV training into their educations, this counselling might still be safer than other options.

 

 

I *am* bound to my ex while dd is a minor. If I were to remarry, and my ex felt like taking me to court again, my husband would be considered a financially interested person. That would mean I could not get legal aid and I certainly wouldn't have time to save up enough.

 

 

Yes, good points, Rosie.  I know that the legalities are complex and often unjust, though I'm sure I don't know the half of it.

[Lady Florida.]

So a young woman in her early 20s, who married a man who beat her, could divorce him, but would have to spend the next 60-some years of her life without the loving companionship of a spouse, or the ability to have children. Because although God will generously allow her to divorce the man who beat the crap out of her, she will be punished for the rest of her life for the sin of being a victim.

 

How very kind and benevolent.

 

Right. And that's not considered "bound" in any way, even though she will be required to spend the majority of her life without a legal partner (without any partner if she follows her church's teachings). But again, that's not bound.  :rolleyes:

[Laura Corin]

You didn't ask me but I will answer.....in my faith, in order for remarriage to take place there will need to be evidence of adultery. Sometimes it is obvious.......my xh admitted it in open court in front of many witnesses including several leaders from my congregation. My dhs xw wasn't as cooperative, even bough she was living with a man the all clear for my Dh to remarry was a little sticky. Usually it works out these things don't stay hidden for lomg.

 

Although I find your church's attitude to these things brutal, at least it seems consistent in its treatment of straight and gay 'sexual sin'.

 

[Ravin]

You didn't ask me but I will answer.....in my faith, in order for remarriage to take place there will need to be evidence of adultery. Sometimes it is obvious.......my xh admitted it in open court in front of many witnesses including several leaders from my congregation. My dhs xw wasn't as cooperative, even bough she was living with a man the all clear for my Dh to remarry was a little sticky. Usually it works out these things don't stay hidden for lomg.

 

So...there has to be adultery of marriage #1 for marriage #2 to be okay? And this adultery makes it okay to remarry even for the adulterer? Something there doesn't seem to add up.

 

So, if Partner A cheats, and they divorce as a result, both can remarry?

 

If they divorce and then Partner A remarries, does that count as adultery freeing partner B to remarry?

[Greta]

So...there has to be adultery of marriage #1 for marriage #2 to be okay? And this adultery makes it okay to remarry even for the adulterer? Something there doesn't seem to add up.

 

So, if Partner A cheats, and they divorce as a result, both can remarry?

 

If they divorce and then Partner A remarries, does that count as adultery freeing partner B to remarry?

 

 

It's a crazy system.  I have a lot of family members in Scarlett's religion, and it has played out in some truly weird ways.  My cousin's husband cheated on her, was CAUGHT IN THE ACT, but he claimed "the underwear never came off" so he wasn't disciplined/shunned as per the rules.  It's become an idiom in my family for whenever someone denies something of which they are obviously guilty:  but the underwear never came off!  My cousin was NOT free to remarry because of his denial of "true" adultery (narrow definition, apparently).  But the thing that makes even less sense is that HE WAS free to remarry!  He remarried and the elders were perfectly fine with that, but she couldn't remarry until after he had.  Makes no damn sense.

[displace]

It's a crazy system. I have a lot of family members in Scarlett's religion, and it has played out in some truly weird ways. My cousin's husband cheated on her, was CAUGHT IN THE ACT, but he claimed "the underwear never came off" so he wasn't disciplined/shunned as per the rules. It's become an idiom in my family for whenever someone denies something of which they are obviously guilty: but the underwear never came off! My cousin was NOT free to remarry because of his denial of "true" adultery (narrow definition, apparently). But the thing that makes even less sense is that HE WAS free to remarry! He remarried and the elders were perfectly fine with that, but she couldn't remarry until after he had. Makes no damn sense.

😳

[JumpyTheFrog]

FYI, all Christians do not have such strict rules around divorce and remarriage. I think most conservative ones go by something like no divorce except for "the four As": abuse, adulterly, addiction, and abandonment (could be physical or emotional).

 

I have read some blog posts that indicate the verses about divorce are actually about "putting away" a wife. They say that it refers to kicking a wife out without giving her a certificate of divorce. Hence Jesus referring to the woman commiting adultery if she "re"marries because she is not legally divorced. The claim is that Jesus was saying that just kicking your wife out without legally divorcing her causes her commit adultery because she moves in with another man to keep from starving to death.

 

I used to believe similarly to Scarlett, but the above interpretation makes a lot of sense to me. I haven't read the book written about it yet, so I can't say for sure if this interpretation is accurate or not, but it sounds more reasonable to me.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Link to the book:

 

https://notunderbondage.com

[JumpyTheFrog]

https://cryingoutforjustice.com

 

A blog about abuse by Christians that want the church to stop being so naive about the issue.

[Scarlett]

It's a crazy system. I have a lot of family members in Scarlett's religion, and it has played out in some truly weird ways. My cousin's husband cheated on her, was CAUGHT IN THE ACT, but he claimed "the underwear never came off" so he wasn't disciplined/shunned as per the rules. It's become an idiom in my family for whenever someone denies something of which they are obviously guilty: but the underwear never came off! My cousin was NOT free to remarry because of his denial of "true" adultery (narrow definition, apparently). But the thing that makes even less sense is that HE WAS free to remarry! He remarried and the elders were perfectly fine with that, but she couldn't remarry until after he had. Makes no damn sense.

He wasn't free to remarry if he was baptized and his wife had no committed adultery. Sometimes people don't tell the whole story.

[TranquilMind]

And I'm trying to figure out why you assume that genitals are "biological facts" and brains are not. :confused1:

 

The development of fetal brains and genitals in utero is influenced by multiple hormones at different times; both are the result of biological processes, and sometimes things happen that change the normal course of those biological processes. Studies have clearly shown actual, physical, biological differences in the brains of gay and straight men. People who are born intersex are not "biologically" one sex and "culturally" another — they are biologically intersex. And sometimes the biology of the brain does not match the biology of the genitals. Insisting that a person's brain has no bearing on their actual identity, and that their identity must be 100% determined by their genitals, is bizarre. Descartes never said "I have a penis, therefore I am."

 

 

 

Animals, deities, and superheroes are not human. A human being cannot physically be a giraffe or a superhero or a deity, therefore someone who believes they are one of those things is clearly delusional. But human beings can physically, biologically, be male or female or, in some cases, a combination of both, whether that is due to indetermine genitalia or a mismatch between the sex of the brain and the sex of the reproductive organs. If one's brain doesn't match one's genitals, that is due to a glitch in fetal development, not mental illness or delusion.

SaveSave

Thank you for your input.

 

I do not buy that  "glitches" occur without any other evidence of anything being wrong, such as in the case of intersex humans.  It's rare that they don't know early on.  Otherwise, we'd be asking every person what gender he was, instead of assuming from appearance, as has always occurred.

[Scarlett]

So...there has to be adultery of marriage #1 for marriage #2 to be okay? And this adultery makes it okay to remarry even for the adulterer? Something there doesn't seem to add up.

 

So, if Partner A cheats, and they divorce as a result, both can remarry?

 

If they divorce and then Partner A remarries, does that count as adultery freeing partner B to remarry?

If the betrayed doesn't want to save the marriage then the marriage bond is broken and yes they may both remarry.

 

It really can seem legalistic but everyone has to be responsible for their choices. God sees what is in our hearts, our motives etc and he knows if one spouse is dealing treacherously with another. They will have to answer for that.

 

It really doesn't happen very often that one is left by/leaves their mate for non adultery reasons and they never commit adultery.

[TranquilMind]

So a divorced straight relationship could be either sinful or not - you wouldn't know.  The straight person is given the benefit of the doubt and their actions are left to their own conscience and interpretation of scripture.  Whereas the gay person is told just to stop doing that stuff, whatever their conscience or biblical understanding?  And to not expect to be offered the security of secular marriage?

 

Perhaps, for the sake of equality, the secular straight divorce laws should be rewritten to allow scriptural divorce only.  Or perhaps you already advocate that, but it's less at the top of your mind.

 

Fornication and homosexuality are both sins.    Both are told to just stop doing that stuff. 

 

I'm not sure what you are asking. 

 

[Scarlett]

It's a crazy system. I have a lot of family members in Scarlett's religion, and it has played out in some truly weird ways. My cousin's husband cheated on her, was CAUGHT IN THE ACT, but he claimed "the underwear never came off" so he wasn't disciplined/shunned as per the rules. It's become an idiom in my family for whenever someone denies something of which they are obviously guilty: but the underwear never came off! My cousin was NOT free to remarry because of his denial of "true" adultery (narrow definition, apparently). But the thing that makes even less sense is that HE WAS free to remarry! He remarried and the elders were perfectly fine with that, but she couldn't remarry until after he had. Makes no damn sense.

Not every wrongdoing results in public discipline or disfellowshipping. And you would really have no way of knowing what private discipline was given for that situation....because even if it was determined that it wasn't adultery it was certainly uncleanness and that is something that would be dealt with.

[Scarlett]

So a young woman in her early 20s, who married a man who beat her, could divorce him, but would have to spend the next 60-some years of her life without the loving companionship of a spouse, or the ability to have children. Because although God will generously allow her to divorce the man who beat the crap out of her, she will be punished for the rest of her life for the sin of being a victim.

 

How very kind and benevolent.

It is highly doubtful that a man who beats his wife is also going to remain faithful to her if she leaves him. But either way she has the responsibility to stay true to the vows she made. That is called integrity. It isn't being a victim.

[TranquilMind]

I still can't wrap my head around the idea that any Christian thinks God is cool with divorce and remarriage due to adultery but not if your spouse beats the crap out of you. It's completely ridiculous.

 

I don't believe that a spouse can beat someone without consequence.   Christians (not in name only ) don't beat the crap out of people; it's kind of implied in the faith.  I would contend that no one who is beating his wife is in Christ.  

 

Spouses can part.  Whether remarriage is possible depends upon whether the spouse is a believer or not or whether he committed adultery.

Marriage is pretty serious. 

 

 

 

[Joker]

I don't believe that a spouse can beat someone without consequence. Christians (not in name only ) don't beat the crap out of people; it's kind of implied in the faith. I would contend that no one who is beating his wife is in Christ.

 

Spouses can part. Whether remarriage is possible depends upon whether the spouse is a believer or not or whether he committed adultery.

Marriage is pretty serious.

Actually if remarriage is possible depends on that person's interpretation of the Bible and their church's as well. Fortunately, my mom's felt violence was pretty serious too and that is was a reason for divorce with remarriage being okay. Not all Christians believe as you but it doesn't make them less of one.

[TranquilMind]

Actually if remarriage is possible depends on that person's interpretation of the Bible and their church's as well. Fortunately, my mom's felt violence was pretty serious too and that is was a reason for divorce with remarriage being okay. Not all Christians believe as you but it doesn't make them less of one.

It really doesn't matter what we believe. God has one standard.

 

We believers are all on a journey to walk in that standard, and thankfully, those who  have accepted Jesus are judged by what He did and not what we did.   

 

If people believe things that are contrary to the faith they might not be believers.  I don't know.  Depends upon what it is.  But there are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Then there are people who go off the path into something crazy, repent, and then return.  God knows who they are. 

[quark]

I don't believe that a spouse can beat someone without consequence.   Christians (not in name only ) don't beat the crap out of people; it's kind of implied in the faith.  I would contend that no one who is beating his wife is in Christ. 

 

TM, this is incredibly naive. And dangerous. :sad:

 

I'm not referring to just Christians.

 

[TranquilMind]

TM, this is incredibly naive. And dangerous. :sad:

 

I'm not referring to just Christians.

"Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.  I shall repay."

I'm only talking about what the scriptures have to say about this outcome.  You must think I am saying that no man who called himself a Christian ever hit his wife. 

 

I'm not.

 

[quark]

You must think I am saying that no man who called himself a Christian ever hit his wife. 

I'm not.

 

No, I did not assume that. I guessed you were referring to after life/ God's wrath.

 

Unfortunately, thoughts and teachings like these propagate abuse, not stop them. Whether it is abuse against a woman or a man or one of no gender/ fluid gender.

[Corraleno]

It really doesn't matter what we believe. God has one standard.

 

We believers are all on a journey to walk in that standard, and thankfully, those who  have accepted Jesus are judged by what He did and not what we did.   

 

If people believe things that are contrary to the faith they might not be believers.  I don't know.  Depends upon what it is.  But there are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Then there are people who go off the path into something crazy, repent, and then return.  God knows who they are. 

 

In other words, anyone who does not interpret scripture exactly as you do is probably not a true Christian.

[quark]

It is highly doubtful that a man who beats his wife is also going to remain faithful to her if she leaves him. But either way she has the responsibility to stay true to the vows she made. That is called integrity. It isn't being a victim.

 

I sincerely hope you are never the target of marital abuse, Scarlett. Have you lived with/ cared for anyone who was?

 

[TranquilMind]

In other words, anyone who does not interpret scripture exactly as you do is probably not a true Christian.

 

Never said that.  Though there are wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

We will all be corrected from time to time along this journey.  No one knows everything perfectly when they start out. 

 

[Greta]

He wasn't free to remarry if he was baptized and his wife had no committed adultery. Sometimes people don't tell the whole story.

 

My cousin didn't commit adultery, if that's what you're implying.  The now-ex-husband never accused her of cheating, no one ever accused her of cheating, because she was not the cheater in the marriage and everyone knew it.  

 

 

 

Not every wrongdoing results in public discipline or disfellowshipping. And you would really have no way of knowing what private discipline was given for that situation....because even if it was determined that it wasn't adultery it was certainly uncleanness and that is something that would be dealt with.

 

 

 

True, I don't know what other discipline he might have been given, only that he wasn't disfellowshipped, which is the usual course of action for an adulterer, and has happened to every WOMAN I know who cheated on her husband, whether she was repentant or not.  I suspect the ex-husband was given a pass because he was the owner of a very successful small business which employed several other members of the congregation.  My guess is they didn't want to piss off a guy who was in a position to fire a significant number of their members.  It's only conjecture on my part.  But I will say this:  even my most die-hard "God's organization can do nothing wrong!" family members were mystified and upset about this situation.  Justice was not served.

[Scarlett]

I sincerely hope you are never the target of marital abuse, Scarlett. Have you lived with/ cared for anyone who was?

 

I did live through abuse with my Xh. And I am 51 years old so I have a fair amount of life experience with all sorts of crazy things I have seen happen to and by my friends.

 

Not sure what you are saying. All I said was it is doubtful a man who beats his wife is going to remain faithful. Either way she doesn't have to stay with him.

[quark]

I did live through abuse with my Xh. And I am 51 years old so I have a fair amount of life experience with all sorts of crazy things I have seen happen to and by my friends.

 

Not sure what you are saying. All I said was it is doubtful a man who beats his wife is going to remain faithful. Either way she doesn't have to stay with him.

 

I really am sorry you experienced that.

 

Your response does assume privilege. That the spouse is not financially dependent on the abuser. That the spouse will seek redress somehow, either legally or by other means. Or perhaps even that the abuse is not severe. And people get away with severe abuse. I don't know how often that happens but it happens.

 

The severely abused women I've known have been victims in more ways than one...financially, emotionally, physically, mentally.

[Corraleno]

All I said was it is doubtful a man who beats his wife is going to remain faithful. Either way she doesn't have to stay with him.

 

No, but her entire life is on hold and her future is dependent on HIS behavior, even though she is the victim. 

 

Is she supposed to hire a PI to follow him around and try to catch him in the act of screwing someone else so she will have proof of her right to move on with her life? What if he moves to another state and she doesn't know where he is? Then she's just stuck spending her life alone and never having kids because she was a victim of abuse? How could that ever be considered fair or just or kind?

[Scarlett]

My cousin didn't commit adultery, if that's what you're implying. The now-ex-husband never accused her of cheating, no one ever accused her of cheating, because she was not the cheater in the marriage and everyone knew it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

True, I don't know what other discipline he might have been given, only that he wasn't disfellowshipped, which is the usual course of action for an adulterer, and has happened to every WOMAN I know who cheated on her husband, whether she was repentant or not. I suspect the ex-husband was given a pass because he was the owner of a very successful small business which employed several other members of the congregation. My guess is they didn't want to piss off a guy who was in a position to fire a significant number of their members. It's only conjecture on my part. But I will say this: even my most die-hard "God's organization can do nothing wrong!" family members were mystified and upset about this situation. Justice was not served.

I don't know what happened. All I know is if he wasn't scripturally free he was free to remarry. So if that was allowed then it was wrong. And if no one called him to task for that they have to answer for that. Congregations are made up of humans who make mistakes. Btw, we don't belive God's organization can do no wrong.

 

As for your comment about disfellowshipping being the usual course of action against adulterers that is just not true. It really depends on so many factors and of course repentance is required. I have known of situations up close and personal with all sorts of outcomes. My Dhs now xw committed adultery and wasn't df'd. My experience, especially in recent years is there is error on the side of mercy more so than the other way around.

 

And yes sometimes it seems someone 'gets away with somethng'. Of course they don't really because God knows.

 

I sure can't explain your cousin not being allowed to remarry. Are you saying even after he remarried she wasn't allowed to? Are you sure he was baptized?

[quark]

How could that ever be considered fair or just or kind?

 

I've given up hoping for compassion. Seems like for a sub-section of a religion that promotes love, compassion has little place in the equation.

 

[Scarlett]

No, but her entire life is on hold and her future is dependent on HIS behavior, even though she is the victim.

 

Is she supposed to hire a PI to follow him around and try to catch him in the act of screwing someone else so she will have proof of her right to move on with her life? What if he moves to another state and she doesn't know where he is? Then she's just stuck spending her life alone and never having kids because she was a victim of abuse? How could that ever be considered fair or just or kind?

No ones life is ever on ho,d just because they can't remarry.

 

And honestly it just doesn't happen like your 'what if'. You would be amazed at the ways that adultery comes to light.