The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 30, 2010, 05:18:46 AM
-
Jesus was asked about divorce and answered that is was Moses that gave the rules on divorce because of people are so hard-hearted he had to do something to deal with a practical reality but God never intended for people to divorce. Jesus defined acceptable divorce down to "sexual immorality."
Now it would be very easy for people to agree that if a woman found out her husband was Tom-catting around at strip clubs or had a girlfriend--or boyfriend...or small furry animals--on the side then her petition of divorce could be granted and her reputation as a Christian woman remain intact.
But what if her husband just wasn't putting out? What if she had a desire for sex and the husband simply refused?
St. Paul mentions more than once that forbidding sex in a marriage is wrong because it drives people into temptation. After all, the purpose of marriage is to get both parties to avow not to have sex with other people, not to have them avow to not have sex, period.
Is lack of sexual affection grounds for divorce in the light of NT scripture?
-
I think that it depends on the circumstances. Is there a legitimate reason that the husband refused (Impotency, physical problems, etc)?? Part of those marriage vows state: "In sickness and in health". Or, is it simply because the man just has lost his desire?? I could really go into depth here, but for privacy's sake, I'm won't. Does a lack of sex mean that there is no longer any love within the relationship?? No always. I think that this is one of those things that one needs to look at the overall "picture" before they can fully analyze this subject.
-
I believe that the law does define this as alienation of affection and can apply to either party. I don't see why religion wouldn't look at it the same way. Lots of room for interpretation though given that every religion views these matters differently.
-
I think that it depends on the circumstances. Is there a legitimate reason that the husband refused (Impotency, physical problems, etc)?? Part of those marriage vows state: "In sickness and in health". Or, is it simply because the man just has lost his desire?? I could really go into depth here, but for privacy's sake, I'm won't. Does a lack of sex mean that there is no longer any love within the relationship?? No always. I think that this is one of those things that one needs to look at the overall "picture" before they can fully analyze this subject.
I imagine the rules around charity apply here. The pious are called to be generous and cheerful givers...
...but...
...he who does not work should not eat.
I presume thusly that charity is predominantly for those who are able-bodoed but momentarily setback and those who are long-term/permanently disabled.
The OT had some interesting laws in this regard, i.e. when a field was harvested the owner could not reap the corners of his field and he couldn't go over the same piece of land twice or beat the same tree twice. Thus any grain/fruit that wasn't collected on the first pass was left to the poor--who were entitled to eat--but they had to harvest it themselves. Slavery was another remedy to entrenched poverty. Those incapable of supporting themselves could sell themselves into servitude where they would have all necessities provided in exchange for their labor. If, after 7 years the servant loved his master enough he could have himself earmarked and remain in his master's employ until the end of his days.
(You christians REALLY need to make this a political platform for welfare reform!)
Anyhoo...
...I'm referring to the type of enforced celibacy of one spouse simply not desiring another. Nothing is physically wrong, no war-induced PTSD, no, "I saw you flirting at the office X-mas party and I'm hurt," etc. the offending spouse has simply stopped making their affections available.
-
I know that the Qur'An specifically addresses this issue. I'm pretty sure that the Old Testament does, too. The subject of concubines comes into mind here.
-
I know that the Qur'An specifically addresses this issue. I'm pretty sure that the Old Testament does, too. The subject of concubines comes into mind here.
There was plenty of that going around. I am reminded at just how important it was (OT) that bloodlines were maintained.
Am I correct in thinking that sex with an un-married woman, was, for men, of course, OK?
-
Oh wow, what a can of worms this is. I don't say that sarcastically, either.
Should a woman...or a man for that matter...be forced - due to their religious beliefs to stay in a marriage with a spouse who sleeps with other people (or furry animals) because the Bible tells them to?
Should a woman ....or a man....be forced to stay in an abusive marriage.....where the spouse beats them, or verbally/emotional beats up on them on a continual basis?
Is that really the life that God wishes us to live...regardless of what the Bible says?
Or is that Man's intrepretation of what he thinks should be? after all, back in ancient times, even up until today in some countries....wife is thought of as Man's chattel. Not as a person with her own rights.
I read an intrepretation ( :fuelfire: ) of this not long ago.
I can't cite the article, because I can't remember even where I read it.
However, the gist of the article was that in ancient times, when all these "laws" and "rules" were set down....people, for the most part, had very short lives. Young girls were considered ready for marriage when they began to menstruate....which in many cases was as young as 10 or 11. They often died in childbirth, or post childbirth, or because their bodies were just worn out from so many pregnancies. A long life was considered 30 years.
Today, sex with a 10 or 11 year old girl is considered pedophilia and "sick". In the US, is it even possible to marry, with a parent's signature under 16?
Many women wait until their late 20's to as late as early 40's to have their first child! (my mother was a month before her 33rd b-day when she had me, back in 1952...that was considered to be very late!!)
In this country, the average life span is now 75+ years! Such a difference from even 200 years ago, let alone 1000 years ago or more.
Were we created to be monogamous for 50 years? Did those who wrote down God's Word on the tenets of marriage ever conceive of the idea that Man would live with one woman for that many years - that the woman would survive that many years?
Science has shown that a female embryo has a better chance of survival than a male one does. There are more "live" births of females than there are of males. But if males can survive through gestation and the very early months of life outside of the womb, they are on equal footing with females for several years.
In the last century, females have had a much higher rate of survival during the childbirthing years, due to advancements in medicine and medical care during pregnancy. Because of this female to male survival is about the same, until somewhere in the 40's or 50's. It's well-known that women still have a longer lifespan these days than men do, though I think the gap is narrowing.
Man is the only being in the animal world that is "expected" to be monogamous. Why? Because we have been taught that through various avenues. Religion, culture, social mores.
A very wise man told me once a very long time ago......"expectations" are something that one individual puts upon another individual...not necessarily done with the second's agreement or knowledge. If done without both parties acknowledgement and agreement....those "expectations" are destined to fail.
According to the Bible...once we marry....we are "expected" to follow the tenets of marriage. At the moment of taking those vows....both people are "assumed" to agree to those expectations. And maybe they do.
But remember....it also says in many places in the Bible....that God knows we will fail...will sin. And He has also said that He will forgive us.
(Which is a good thing....cause I'm not sure I've yet hit that "forgiveness" point regarding the sins against me.)
No matter how one looks at it....divorce is an issue to which there is no one right answer. It is not a black/white issue. There are so many factors that must be considered....on an individual basis.
Has marriage lost it's sanctity? (this coming from the woman who has lived with a man for 10? years without marriage vows :thatsright: )
I don't know. It goes back to what we have often talked about....that no two people walk the same path in life.
It is, oh so very easy, to say ....Well!!! (point that nose in the air!) I would never do that!!!!
And that's great. Each one has that right to their opinion.
And when something happens in life to rock that same "one's" world....those words just may come back and bite them in the tush....and not softly either.
I know I drifted ( :whatever: ) from the original question that Snugs posed....but loss of intimacy does not just start out of nowhere. It is a result...not a cause. The "cause" must be determined to alter the result. Divorce is a product, or consequence, of the cause and result.
-
Deb - so well said. I really can't add anymore.
-
Deb - so well said. I really can't add anymore.
Thanks! I figured it was such a mishmash of thoughts, no one would understand what I meant. :heart:
-
Thanks! I figured it was such a mishmash of thoughts, no one would understand what I meant. :heart:
It seems our lives have many parallels, and well, I understood it perfectly. Well said Deb.
-
But I wasn't asking about an abusive relationship or concubines or anything like that.
Is willfully--and without cause--denial of sexual satisfaction a moral offense against a marriage enough to dissolve the bonds akin to as if adultery had occurred?
-
But I wasn't asking about an abusive relationship or concubines or anything like that.
Is willfully--and without cause--denial of sexual satisfaction a moral offense against a marriage enough to dissolve the bonds akin to as if adultery had occurred?
I'm not sure I have an opinion, I'll have to give it some thought......
However, (and those who are Catholic can chime in if I'm incorrect)......arguably the Catholics have the most stringent standards on the vows of marriage, and at least at its onset, I believe that a Catholic can successfully petition the Church for an "annulment" of the marriage if sex is witheld by either partner......
doc
-
But I wasn't asking about an abusive relationship or concubines or anything like that.
Is willfully--and without cause--denial of sexual satisfaction a moral offense against a marriage enough to dissolve the bonds akin to as if adultery had occurred?
Didn't the courts in Afghanistan recently rule that a man can rape his wife if she withholds sex?
-
But I wasn't asking about an abusive relationship or concubines or anything like that.
Is willfully--and without cause--denial of sexual satisfaction a moral offense against a marriage enough to dissolve the bonds akin to as if adultery had occurred?
I don't know.
-
I'm not sure I have an opinion, I'll have to give it some thought......
However, (and those who are Catholic can chime in if I'm incorrect)......arguably the Catholics have the most stringent standards on the vows of marriage, and at least at its onset, I believe that a Catholic can successfully petition the Church for an "annulment" of the marriage if sex is witheld by either partner......
doc
They don't happen to write down the numbers of the petititoners...do they? :uhsure: :-) :innocent:
I always thought annulment could not be affected once the marriage was consummated. Would it still count after several years?
See, my query is this and--again--I'm not talking about special circumstances like illness or loosing affection after discovering an affair:
It can be argued that a sexually vibrant person should not be reduced to a life of forced celibacy.
But obligating a disnterested party into having sex doesn't seem much better and would probably create more strife than it cures.
* Would it be better for the disinterested party to simply grant a divorce and make the separation as painless as possible for all parties?
* What if the disinterested party didn't want to go quietly?
* Would the sexually desirous person be in some form of moral offense if they later remarried into a more compatible relationship?
I'm sort of taking a, "What if you sat on a church council?" approach.
Didn't the courts in Afghanistan recently rule that a man can rape his wife if she withholds sex?
If I also wanted to pick fleas out of my ass and eat them I'd ask an Afghani.
-
They don't happen to write down the numbers of the petititoners...do they? :uhsure: :-) :innocent:
I always thought annulment could not be affected once the marriage was consummated. Would it still count after several years?
You are thinking in legal terms...not Catholic Church terms. Legally speaking (not being a lawyer) it usually is that only an unconsummated marriage may be annulled.
However, I know a woman here, who was only married about 10 days, and her husband beat the crap out of her enough to require hospitalization. She never went back to the marriage "home" except with one very large brother and one very large son, and police officer sister, to recover as many of her possessions as possible. She was granted an annulment. This was about 13 years ago, and she is older than me. Don't know how the laws have changed.
In the Catholic Church, a Catholic ... who was married in the Church - in the Catholic Church by a Catholic priest...may petition the Church for an annulment, regardless of how long the marriage was or if there were any children born within the marriage. It just costs a bunch of money. A bunch.
My step-sister did it, after 10 years of marriage and one child. I seem to remember it costing her about $10k and this was over 20 years ago. She and her husband, a Catholic, wanted to adopt a child and because of their age at the time, Catholic Charities was their best option. Catholic Charities, at that time, would only allow Catholics to adopt a child from them. My SS and her husband were married, but not in the Church. The Church does not recognize marriages that were not done in the Church, as "Catholic" marriages.
M was also married in the Church, and he and his first wife had their marriage annulled because she wanted to get married again - to a Catholic and wanted more children. They were married 3.5 years and had 2 children. I don't know what his cost to be annulled, but when I asked and I told him what my SS's was.....his response was..."More!!"
His second marriage was not in the Church and not to a Catholic. I was not married in the Catholic Church. So, if/when ( :-) ) we go through with getting married....we can get married in the Church.
See, my query is this and--again--I'm not talking about special circumstances like illness or loosing affection after discovering an affair:
It can be argued that a sexually vibrant person should not be reduced to a life of forced celibacy.
But obligating a disnterested party into having sex doesn't seem much better and would probably create more strife than it cures.
* Would it be better for the disinterested party to simply grant a divorce and make the separation as painless as possible for all parties? Once children are in a ....divorce is never going to be painless. Sounds trite, but it is true.
* What if the disinterested party didn't want to go quietly? Get a lawyer involved in a divorce....ain't nobody going quietly! :censored:
* Would the sexually desirous person be in some form of moral offense if they later remarried into a more compatible relationship? Depends on whose morals are being used to do the judging. God's or Man's? We've established, I think, that God does His own judging, which one doesn't really know how they did in life, until death. Personally, I believe that I will spend some period of time in Purgatory attoning for my sins, until God decides I am deserving of Heaven.
We can't do anything about Man's judgement. Regardless of what the circumstancs are, who did what, and what did who, etc etc...people are going to judge. Believe me, whether they know the circumstances or not, anyone who knows the parties involved....and even those who don't....are very quick to judge and offer their "opinion" to anyone who wants to listen. BTDT and still have the scars of judgement. :censored:
I'm sort of taking a, "What if you sat on a church council?" approach.
Again, as mentioned the Catholics have their way of dealing with divorce. When I was a teen and my widowed father married a divorced woman, he was excommunicated. The same as what happened to Catholics. The Catholics found a way to make money from it, the Epicopalians just came to the acceptance of divorce and remarriage, in the early 70's, primarily because their own priests were getting divorces and wanted to remarry.
I don't know how other Protestant religions handle divorce. Around here, in the wonderful Southern Bible Belt, the husbands....and wives....just cheat, and show up as a united front on Sundays at church. ::) Eventually, they may or not, divorce and remarry....and many just stay together for whatever reasons.
It amazes me, around here, how many cheating husbands there are, and the wives know it!!! Maybe it's a holdover from that plantation thing....rights of the owner.
If I also wanted to pick fleas out of my ass and eat them I'd ask an Afghani.
-
Can't you just answer the question in the manner and terms it was posed?
I know all this other stuff exists but that's not what I'm asking about.
-
Can't you just answer the question in the manner and terms it was posed?
I know all this other stuff exists but that's not what I'm asking about.
Snugs....you are asking a question, wanting a simple answer. There isn't a simple answer.
Any church is made up of many people. Each one of those individuals has their own personal opinion and the opinion that they have been taught by their respective church doctrines and pastors.
You are asking if it's "okay" to get a divorce because one spouse withholds sex from the other.
It's ok to get a divorce for whatever reason!
No one person truly has the right to judge a couple who get a divorce.
Only God has that right....
Problem is....too many people think it's their right....based on their personal beliefs...religious or otherwise.
Is that simple enough?
Edited to add....Specific Church(religion) rules regarding remarriage may apply depending on the individual who got the divorce. I think there are also some specific religions who still "shun" those who divorce.
-
The answer is NO.
Is that simple enough? :-)
-
But I wasn't asking about an abusive relationship or concubines or anything like that.
Is willfully--and without cause--denial of sexual satisfaction a moral offense against a marriage enough to dissolve the bonds akin to as if adultery had occurred?
I would have to say yes!,since that is breaking the marriage covenant!
-
The answer is NO.
Is that simple enough? :-)
So one person can impose a life of celibacy on another person who would have never chosen it for themself?
-
So one person can impose a life of celibacy on another person who would have never chosen it for themself?
Can they? Yes.
Is it right? No.
Is it moral? Not sure that is the right word.
Is it spiteful? Yes.
As I said before....I don't think one would impose a life of celibacy on another without cause. It may only be cause in that person's mind....or it may be what that person considers justifiable due to the spouse's actions/activities. Other than health reasons, the only reasons I can think of for witholding sex, for an extended period of time, would be out of anger or spite.
-
Can they? Yes.
Is it right? No.
Is it moral? Not sure that is the right word.
Is it spiteful? Yes.
As I said before....I don't think one would impose a life of celibacy on another without cause. It may only be cause in that person's mind....or it may be what that person considers justifiable due to the spouse's actions/activities. Other than health reasons, the only reasons I can think of for witholding sex, for an extended period of time, would be out of anger or spite.
It could be simply a form of control or it could "she forgot my birthday three years running and I'm mad!"
In either of those scenarios would you allow the wife to divorce and remarry without threat of excommunication or impugning the spiritualness of their "walk"?
I don't realy care about secular standard. The only standard in the secular world is, there are no standards.
-
It could be simply a form of control or it could "she forgot my birthday three years running and I'm mad!"
In either of those scenarios would you allow the wife to divorce and remarry without threat of excommunication or impugning the spiritualness of their "walk"? Would I personally, yes. Who am I to come between an individual and their "walk"?
I don't realy care about secular standard. The only standard in the secular world is, there are no standards. You just answered your original question. :-)
-
Obviously some sects hold stricter to marriage ideals than others.
Now, modernity has pretty much polluted the institution of marriage. It's worthless, meaningless and for the most part consensus here says you can re-marry if you feel like you aren't getting enough action in the sack. Most people here would still consider such a petitioner to still be a christian (or so muddle the issue as to make judgment irrelevant...just the way the relativists want it).
But suppose someone said, "I consider myself a Christian but I support elective abortion and I think the church needs to accomodate my position."
Now, as I noted in my last post, the secular standard is to be devoid of standards and apparently this is good enough for the pious but can Christianity abide a pro-abortionist sect in the same manner it abides divorce in the name of sexual gratification?
The "who am I to judge" response doesn't seem to hold in this instance.
Some might suggest that I'm arguing apples to oranges but I don't think so. Marriage is--first and foremost--about governing sexual conduct because women and children suffer most when men become socially sanctioned sexual predators...but in a christian setting there is no denying marriage is a spiritual institution with allegory to the way humanity communes with its god.
In total contravention of good sense Feminism struck deeply at church authority by fabricating no-fault divorce and abortion "rights", which were major elements of the free love sexual revolution.
I would assume the souls of aborted children gain succor in Heaven so that must mean abortion is a sin because of the weight it puts on the souls of the earth-bound. To say elective abortion foments a callous disregard for life is an understatement. If marriage can be picked up and set aside with all the fuss of buying a new car does the institution--presumably spiritual in form and function--become diluted? What do such things do to the souls of the earth-bound? Does easy divorce create a callous disregard for the institution and shouldn't that mean more to christians than it does for the secular?
(http://www.collectiveroots.org/files/u3/can_of_worms.jpg)
DISCLAIMER: I'm very anti-elective abortion myself.
-
But suppose someone said, "I consider myself a Christian but I support elective abortion and I think the church needs to accomodate my position."
Now, as I noted in my last post, the secular standard is to be devoid of standards and apparently this is good enough for the pious but can Christianity abide a pro-abortionist sect in the same manner it abides divorce in the name of sexual gratification?
The "who am I to judge" response doesn't seem to hold in this instance.
In total contravention of good sense Feminism struck deeply at church authority by fabricating no-fault divorce and abortion "rights", which were major elements of the free love sexual revolution.
I would assume the souls of aborted children gain succor in Heaven so that must mean abortion is a sin because of the weight it puts on the souls of the earth-bound. To say elective abortion foments a callous disregard for life is an understatement. If marriage can be picked up and set aside with all the fuss of buying a new car does the institution--presumably spiritual in form and function--become diluted? What do such things do to the souls of the earth-bound? Does easy divorce create a callous disregard for the institution and shouldn't that mean more to christians than it does for the secular?
DISCLAIMER: I'm very anti-elective abortion myself.
This attitude already "infects" certain elements of protestant Christianity.....in the infamous "Crisis" thread, I used the anecdotal example of the "Desciples of Christ"......which is considered mainstream.....one of their national policy positions is recognition of the whole "womans right to choose" thing, therefore endorsing abortion......I suspect if you looked long and hard at several others, the "United Methoditists" for example you would find the same thing.....it may not be openly discussed, but it is there nonetheless.....
doc
-
gay preachers too
Marriage lost its meaning and with it the meaning it had between God and church.
-
gay preachers too
Marriage lost its meaning and with it the meaning it had between God and church.
Yes....they "go through the motions".......but it has largely become more dogmatic rhetoric than "Sanctification".
doc
-
I was listening to Christian radio late one night and the fellow on the radio said;
The literal interpretation about divorce is 'Marital Infidelity'. His take was they didn't use adultry at that point because marital infidelity meant many things. A husband being abusive, not providing for the family, hanging out with friends rather than being home with the family, etc ... Same thing for the wife.
His take in short was there are many biblical reasons for divorce because of the way that passage of scripture was written. I tend to agree but that is only my opinion.
I can't imagine God wanting any woman (man) to stay in an abusive relationship of any kind.
KC
-
So one person can impose a life of celibacy on another person who would have never chosen it for themself?
"in good times and in bad" unfortunately for the spouse that's not getting it...it's the "bad".
but still not a reason for divorce, according to the catholic catechism.
-
The Catechism of the Catholic Church Defines Divorce
Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other until death. Sacramental marriage is the sign of the covenant of salvation, to which divorce does incredible injury. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery. If a husband, separated from his wife, becomes involved with another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.[2]
Furthermore, the Catechism states that divorce is immoral because “it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.â€[3]
But do we really believe that? Do we believe instead that the Church is “out of touch†with relationships and needs to “get with it?†The mentality of civil society challenges the divinely revealed truth that a valid marriage is an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. The Church responds by saying: “The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. Between the baptized, ‘a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.’â€[4]
I don't agree with this entirely...but withholding sex is not a valid reason for divorce in the Bible.
-
7:1 Now with regard to the issues you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.†2 But because of immoralities, each man should have relations with his own wife and each woman with her own husband. 3 A husband should give to his wife her sexual rights, and likewise a wife to her husband. 4 It is not the wife who has the rights to her own body, but the husband. In the same way, it is not the husband who has the rights to his own body, but the wife. 5 Do not deprive each other, except by mutual agreement for a specified time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then resume your relationship, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that everyone was as I am. But each has his own gift from God, one this way, another that. ©NET
Read More.
Powered By: NETBibleTagger
1 Corinthians 7:1-7
-
The Catechism of the Catholic Church Defines Divorce
....
I don't agree with this entirely...but withholding sex is not a valid reason for divorce in the Bible.
But Jesus did make an exception for sexual immorality.
Toasted's citation seems to make a strong case that withholding sex is immoral.
-
In my opinion, it would make a difference what the husband is doing. If he has lost his desire for his wife...and with men, lost desire can definitely affect the ability to "perform,"...and therefore remains chaste himself, perhaps there is no Christian right for the wife to divorce him.
However, if the husband has instead gotten into some other arena of sexual satisfaction (porn, masturbation, etc.) that does not include his wife...even if it includes no other actual person...he is committing adultery by the definition given by Jesus. (Lust = adultery) Therefore, the wife should definitely have the right to choose divorce on the grounds of marital infidelity. Especially if she has not done anything she can control that would cause him to loose his desire...like gain 100 pounds, or act in an abusive manner...while he has made the deliberate choice to turn his desires away from his only "legal" relief.
-
also, what is the root cause of this lack of sexual desire? Is there someone else? Is there depression?maybe it's temporary.
-
In my opinion, it would make a difference what the husband is doing. If he has lost his desire for his wife...and with men, lost desire can definitely affect the ability to "perform,"...and therefore remains chaste himself, perhaps there is no Christian right for the wife to divorce him.
However, if the husband has instead gotten into some other arena of sexual satisfaction (porn, masturbation, etc.) that does not include his wife...even if it includes no other actual person...he is committing adultery by the definition given by Jesus. (Lust = adultery) Therefore, the wife should definitely have the right to choose divorce on the grounds of marital infidelity. Especially if she has not done anything she can control that would cause him to loose his desire...like gain 100 pounds, or act in an abusive manner...while he has made the deliberate choice to turn his desires away from his only "legal" relief.
I don't think that someone gaining weight...regardless of how much it is...is justification for divorce.
Gaining weight and abusive behavior is like comparing grapes with watermelons.... ::)
-
also, what is the root cause of this lack of sexual desire? Is there someone else? Is there depression?maybe it's temporary.
That assumes remediation and reconciliation are possible.
If there is someone else we are no longer talking about a loss of desire but adultery but the OP assumes no possibility of adultery for its scenario.
I don't think that someone gaining weight...regardless of how much it is...is justification for divorce.
Gaining weight and abusive behavior is like comparing grapes with watermelons.... ::)
Certainly but let's face facts: if someone looks like a watermelon they lose their sex-a-peel.
I knew a fellow once, very athletic, many women wanted him; who once had a gorgeous wife but she decided to become 400lbs. Sex was virtually physically impossible. I cannot imagine telling this person...or anyone similarly situated, "Welcome to the next 50 years of your life."
I wouldn't be able to do it.
Sad for her? Perhaps, but her obesity was her behavior, and multiplying the misery by telling him to remain trapped and forget he is human didn't seem to help either of them or strengthen society in any way.
-
A woman once told me, "It ain't cheating if you don't move."
I have no knowledge of wheather she moved or not.
-
I don't think that someone gaining weight...regardless of how much it is...is justification for divorce.
Gaining weight and abusive behavior is like comparing grapes with watermelons.... ::)
Neither do I. However, if she gains weight, and he therefore decides to get his "jollies" elsewhere, then SHE has the right to divorce HIM even if he doesn't have an actual affair. It is worth mentioning because a person can only change themselves...and she might choose to live with him, or she might choose to loose weight to regain his interest. In my opinion, though, he is the one straying so she is the one with options. If he were to stray and then compound it by leaving, she should be able to sue for not only divorce, but also breach of contract.