An Australian couple is saying they’ll divorce if Australia decides to allow gay marriage:
Nick Jensen, who posed with his wife Sarah on the cover of the latest issue of Canberra City News, writes of the Christian couple’s decision to end their marriage under the headline, “Gay law change may force us to divorce”.
“My wife and I just celebrated our 10-year anniversary. But later this year, we may be getting a divorce,” he writes.
May “force us to divorce”? Force? Because if you don’t divorce of your own volition, what will happen? Oh, that’s right, you’ll stay married.
And isn’t divorce a sin in the bible as well? Hypocrites.
And I can just see how government representatives will react. “Golly gee, we were going to legalize gay marriage, but this one couple will get a divorce we didn’t make them get if we do. Better maintain a state of inequality to avoid having to look at their temper tantrum.” Yeah, that’ll happen. It appears your “religion of humility” hasn’t done squat to convince you that the whole world doesn’t revolve around you.
“The decision to divorce is not one we’ve taken lightly. And certainly, it’s not one that many will readily understand. And that’s because it’s not a traditional divorce.”
Not a traditional divorce? So, no splitting of possessions and what not? What do you mean by divorce?
Mr Jensen goes on to explain the divorce plan, where the pair will continue to live together, have more kids, and refer to each other as husband and wife, but will legally end their marriage because they believe “marriage is not a human invention”.
Oh, so nothing will change except your tax breaks. Wow, the sacrifice you’re making. That’s a bit like saying you’re doing a hunger protest and intend to starve yourself. But don’t worry: it’s not a hunger protest in the traditional sense – you’re still going to eat meat, vegetables, ice cream, bread, and what not, but jelly beans? Jelly beans are out! Thanks, Obama (or whoever Christians hate down under).
And marriage is not a human invention? Right, without god how would we ever have thought about cohabitation with one other person?
“Our view is that marriage is a fundamental order of creation. Part of God’s human history.
Then one can only ponder why it’s human doing it and why it changes with human whim (and has for thousands of years since before marriage was about the arrangement of property).
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman before a community in the sight of God.
In your religion, sure. And nobody cares or is even remotely interested in changing what marriage is in your religion. However, to the government it’s not a religious concept. Civil marriage has nothing to do with your religion.
And marriage of any couple is important to God regardless of whether that couple recognises God’s involvement or authority in it,” he writes.
In the piece, Jensen describes the intervention of the state into marriage as “odd”, and says he and his wife refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes same sex couples.
Uh huh, which is why you’re going to go to a government official for that divorce, right? Or maybe you won’t, then your metaphorical hunger strike will even include jelly beans.
However, it’s funny: you’re demanding the government build its marriage laws around your religion, but you’re saying you don’t acknowledge the legitimacy of your government’s marriage laws. Then what’s the deal with the faux divorce?
“If our federal parliament votes to change the timeless and organic definition of marriage later on this year, it will have moved against the fundamental and foundational building block of Australian society and, indeed, human culture everywhere,” he writes.
I know, right? Every time we’re about to invent something, build a structure, express love, or anything, really, we all check to see if gay people are allowed to marry first. Thankfully they haven’t been able to yet, so society got built. But what happens when we have to check that “gay people can marry” box? Huh? Just look at how society has stopped progressing in the places where LGBT people are allowed to marry.
Oh, they meant for having children. Well riddle me this: if being married is for having kids, why are they saying they plan to have more kids after being divorced? Doesn’t that undermine the whole argument?
What’s that, you say? They’re some of the most prosperous places in the world where the standard of living is highest? Um…that’s the devil trying to fool you.
“Indeed, it raises a red flag when a government decides it is not content only having sovereignty over land, taxes and the military — but ‘words’ themselves.
Yeah, to me “speeding” means traveling the speed of light. How dare the government re-define it to tell me I can only drive 55 mph?
I can just see that argument in the Antebellum South: freedom means black people can still be slaves. What? Does the government care more about this equality nonsense than keeping the definitions of words?
“This is why we are willing to divorce. By changing the definition of marriage, ‘marriage’ will, in years to come, have an altogether different sense and purpose.”
I feel like “divorce” should be in quotation marks.
Anyway, there you have it: Christian persecution in the real world – just like the kid who’s persecuted and throws a tantrum when a parent buys his sister a candy bar too, then he swears he’ll run away, which he does for about fifteen feet thinking he sure showed his parents and his sister.