Protecting the sanctity of marriage

I could be wrong on this, but didn't Henry VIII attack the sanctity of marriage and start a whole new religion? Why are we still arguing this 'sanctity' nonsense?

 

Why are we still arguing this 'sanctity' nonsense?

Because it's an election year & the GOP wants to keep the wowsers and snake handlers fired up.

 

Henry VIII wanted to have his marriage annulled and the Pope didn't let him, so he started his own church (The Church of England). Get your facts straight.

 

You're pointing the blame in the wrong place. It was Obama who recently flip-flopped on his position and came out of the closet as the "first gay president" on the cover of Newsweek. Lefties want us distracted by social issues so we'll forget about the economy. It's a re-election strategy.

 

The Religious Wrong were making an issue of it long before Obama said anything.

 

Of course Liberal does not want to protect the sanctity of marriage. The OP proves this.

Your little comic strip would be funnier, if you knew the difference.

Why are liberals so against adult men and fathers protecting the chastity and virtue of their daughters? I'll tell you why....because they're rapists who want the cow's milk for free.

 

Good one, LOL

Women are never to blame for anything, especially never divorce. It's ALWAYS the men's fault.........????

 

Just goes to show you that God's Law transcends man's laws, and the laws of kings and monarchs. Christ is still the KING OF KINGS.

 

Actually all of these "marriages" are illegal inside TRUE CHRISTIAN churches. The problem is a corruption of christianity in the united states, by protestants and zionists.

Divorce is ALMOST NEVER LEGAL in TRUE christian churches, and if you tried to get a divorce, you could face SEVERE punishments by the religious authorities.

 

Shame you don't seem to have a clue about how marriages can and do fail..

 

Shame on you for not knowing who is to blame for the failure of marriages.

We can assume, naturally, because we are western men......that it is ALWAYS a man's fault, and if not the husband, then GOD is to blame for all things.....just as we place the burden of absolute responsibility onto Christ in the form of the Crucifix.

But just imagine.......that we put BLAME onto women, or a woman, or a wife. Imagine if women began to take RESPONSIBILITY for failed marriages. What would this change about the world.

Now imagine something greater.........imagine if we blamed the so-called "priest" who MARRIED the pair. Imagine if HE were to blame, for the failed marriage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Women can ruin a marriage too, but that's hardly the point.

 

No no, my dear Durandal......that is a VERY important point. We can't ignore that one.

Who do we blame for a failed marriage......husband? wife? priest? anyone else?

Why don't we start blaming the children???

 

That's Durandal Pie to you, buster.

If we're going to blame someone for a divorce, we ought to blame who ever happens to be responsible for the divorce in question. No one's pretending that only men or only women spoil a marriage. There are jerks on both sides of the gender divide, and of course there are any number of other reasons it may not work out.

You seem to support some kind of theocratic tyranny governing marriage. For shame!

 

No, I'm just pointing out the double standard to you.

Here's how the order of blame goes:

1. God, God is ultimately to "blame" for all things
2. Christ, Son of God, is to "blame" for all Good doings of mankind
3. Man, men are made in the image of God, followers of Christ, and more "criminalized" than women or children
4. Woman, women are made in the image of men, followers of men, and least "criminalized". Women are generally "innocent" and protected.
5. Children, children are least "guilty" and "blamed" of all the human specie, responsibility is something completey unknown and foreign to them, this is "innocence".

 

Who would you claim thinks like this? You?

Women are not "made in the image of men."

 

And yet God repeatedly orders the murder en masse of category 5 in the Old Testament. Genocide of innocents, you say?

 

Of course! It was for the greater good

 

is this what republican mean by traditional marriage?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 22:28-29&version=NIV

 

Yep, and its sad. Its the 21st century and some people still think like the dinosaurs of the early 19th century.

 

My facts are perfectly straight. Henry VIII destroyed marriage and the sanctity thereof. Now if you want to argue that the Church of England is just a church and not a whole new religion, you might have a point, but I don't care.

Marriage = one man/one woman, not one man/one woman AT A TIME. - What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder - and all that happy crap.