RSS

Divorced churchians, and their not seeing themselves attacked in pro-marriage statements

04 Aug

In a recent subscriber-only newletter Jonah Goldberg put out, regarding the Chick-fil-A kerfuffle, he noted something I find interesting, and thought-provoking (HT: DG; BTW, I’m not a big fan of Goldberg, but even stopped clocks are right twice a day, after all, as I think Goldberg happens to be, in this):

I think it’s interesting to note that Dan Cathy’s original controversial statement is more pointed at the institution of divorce than at gay marriage. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

And yet it wasn’t the divorced-American or the re-married-American community that rose up in outrage. It was the gay-rights community — which apparently sees belief or rather vocal belief in “Biblical marriage” as a crime unto itself.

Indeed, divorced and remarried people apparently didn’t take offense at Cathy’s words; they obviously didn’t see them as applying to them, did they…

Why is that?  Certainly, it’s the sissies who are always ready to throw a sissy hissy fit over the slightest perceived slight, hair-trigger ready to take offense and bitch and raise a stink over such.  They are self-servingly paranoid, if I may, and everyone who is not a ‘progressive’ certainly knows that.  Now, it may be merely that, by contrast, divorced and remarried people are simply not as aggrieved as the sodomites are, seeing opponents as practically hiding behind trees, ready to jump out and ‘oppress’ them.

But, perhaps there’s more to it, than just that…

I think that generally, divorced and remarried people just don’t see themselves as such (i.e. their identities aren’t wrapped up in their being divorced and remarried people, in the way that sodomites’ identities are wrapped up in their sexual orientation), fundamentally; since they have been married, in some cases more than once, they are apt to see themselves as more pro-marriage than they are pro-divorce, not without some justification, since if they hadn’t been, they wouldn’t have gotten married in the first place.

And no doubt, thanks to the culture of easy divorce having invaded even the church, without much opposition, divorced churchians are able to rationalize away their reasons for getting divorced, and consider their own cases exceptional, allowing them to both claim they believe strongly in Biblical marriage, but that they had extenuating circumstances in their particular circumstances, allowing them to legitimately end their marriages.

(The other factor, of course, is that if divorce is only sought by one spouse, for frivolous reasons other than adultery, for example, the other one will rightly consider himself / herself not responsible for the decision to end the marriage – while, of course, the initiator may excuse herself / himself, rationalizing away the decision, blaming the other spouse for it.  Women, especially, under our current ‘Marriage 2.0’, are esp. prone to this.)

Thus, perhaps, in part, one reason, apart from not being as hypersensitive to perceived slights as sodomites are, why none of them saw themselves indicted in Cathy’s championing of traditional marriage.  (That goes for divorced churchians no doubt as much as it does for their secular divorced brethren and sisters.)

I’d bet there were many divorced and remarried churchians, including ones (esp. women) who ended their marriages for frivolous reasons, amongst the people who turned out at Chick-fil-A locations across America in droves on August 1 (Mike Huckabee and Rev. Billy Graham’s “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day”), who didn’t in the slightest see themselves reflected in Dan Cathy’s statements, thinking they were doing their good duty in standing up for traditional marriage and against gay marriage, and supporting Cathy’s right to defend traditional marriage, unaware of the irony of their actions.  (But then, churchians are obsessed with the gay marriage issue, while being completely oblivious to societal misandry; they’re completely Blue Pill, after all.)

Just a thought.

 

18 responses to “Divorced churchians, and their not seeing themselves attacked in pro-marriage statements

  1. John Doe

    August 4, 2012 at 10:27 am

    What is wrong with people today? A man says he thanks God for being married to his first wife, and all the little immoral people take offense. It is no different than thanking God for his children. Or his success in business. It is just people who know they are immoral not liking to be reminded of their immorality if you axe me. You saying that those who are divorced should likewise take offense just as the faggot bitches did is just plain stupid. Becuz the faggot bitches got their panties twisted, everybody else should too. What a load of crap.

     
  2. empathologicalism

    August 4, 2012 at 11:56 am

    Bingo. I noted Cathys pro marriage comment as exactly anti-divorce. He even recounted that staff were married long term to SAME WIFE.
    Frivorced women (lets face it thats the vast majority) actually don’t even consider themselves divorced, so powerful the rationalization is.
    I am not surprised but i am disappointed that conservatives have not widely jumped on this. I happen to like Jonah pretty much, and the fact he picked up on this makes me like him even more

     
  3. Will S.

    August 4, 2012 at 11:58 am

    @ John Doe: You’re completely missing the point; I’m not saying that divorced people OUGHT to take offense – I’m glad they don’t, and still in their hearts actually believe in the concept of marriage – I was merely exploring WHY they don’t take offense.

     
  4. Will S.

    August 4, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    @ empath: I like Jonah on some cultural matters, but I find him a bit inconsistent; he actually doesn’t have any issue with gay marriage, for instance, while I certainly do.

     
  5. Anonymous Reader

    August 4, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Actually, Cathy’s statement is a backhanded smack in the face to all the men who have been through divorce theft. Basically it reads thusly:: “We are still married to our first wives, you losers”. By implication, if a man is divorced, it surely is his fault, and only his fault.

    There is nothing – but nothing – in that statement by Cathy that rebukes any woman for any thing.

    Typical social conservative ignorance of the real world at work.

    Empath, you should know by now that “defending marriage” to conservatives means opposing homosexual marriage, and nothing more. They don’t dare actually condemn no-fault (actually “men’s fault”) divorce – because their wives would put them in the dog house, make them sleep on the couch, etc. But don’t forget, they are all he-man patriarchs. Their wives told them so…

     
  6. Will S.

    August 4, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    @ AR: “Actually, Cathy’s statement is a backhanded smack in the face to all the men who have been through divorce theft. Basically it reads thusly:: “We are still married to our first wives, you losers”. By implication, if a man is divorced, it surely is his fault, and only his fault.”

    Hmmm, that’s an interesting take; I would need to hear more from Cathy himself before I would be comfortable making such an assertion, definitively, but I certainly think your take on his views is plausible enough, and, alas, knowing Blue Pill socons (unlike us Red Pill socons here at Patriactionary), all too likely…

    “There is nothing – but nothing – in that statement by Cathy that rebukes any woman for any thing.”

    Indeed, he didn’t say, “And our wives are married to their first husbands”… He put the focus on the men. Of course, one could argue that’s merely because it’s the men who are the senior management of the restaurant chain, and not their wives…

     
  7. Anonymous Reader

    August 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    Will S.
    Indeed, he didn’t say, “And our wives are married to their first husbands”… He put the focus on the men. Of course, one could argue that’s merely because it’s the men who are the senior management of the restaurant chain, and not their wives…

    Perhaps. Perhaps the wives find it easier to let the men manage the restaurant chain, and they manage the men. Again, I have personally observed more than one he-manly patriarch who will hold his wife’s purse on command, for as long as she wants – he’s a “patriarch” because she tells him so. And in the real world, Dan Cathy is one trip to divorce court away from a very different job, as millions of men have found out to their life long dismay.

    Be all this as it may, the fact remains that those who claim to “defend marriage” in the public eye are quite careful never to mention “no fault” divorce as any sort of issue to be discussed, even though it clearly is the major destructive element. The women wouldn’t like it, and that’s that.

    I don’t have any brief for homosexual marriage – it is a contradiction in terms, for a start – and am quite aware of the polyamorous already panting in the wings for their “rights”. But facts are facts. It isn’t homosexuals who cause 30% of US Roman Catholic marriages to end in divorce or annullment. It isn’t homosexuals who cause 38% of US Evangelical marriages to end in divorce, and yes, that includes Dan Cathy’s church. It isn’t homosexuals who cause over 50% of marriages in California to end in divorce.

    And it isn’t homosexuals who cause 60+% of divorce actions to be filed by the wives, either.

    40% of children born in the US last year came out of a woman who wasn’t married.
    50% of births to women under the age of 30 were to unmarried women.

    Let me know when Dan Cathy, or any other “defender of marriage”, pipes up about these facts.

     
  8. John Doe

    August 4, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    Will S, You lump social conservatives together as all being like-minded sheeple with no brains. My wife divorced me, and I have taken the red pill, but I still am socially conservative. Not because I’m brain-washed, but because thousands of years of civilization have proven that social conservatism works, and the anything-goes-lowest-common-denominator type of civilization does not work. Dunno anything about you, but would you want to raise your kids in San Francisco, for instance, or have them go to Washington D.C. publc schools? Two parents happily married raising kids in a socially conservative environment works, and to me the proof is in the pudding. Hell, if there was a chick fillet near me I’d go support them, too (though there food sucks and is overpriced). Even somebody from a failed marriage is bright enough to see that it beats the alternatives all to hell.

     
  9. Will S.

    August 4, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    @ AR: “Perhaps the wives find it easier to let the men manage the restaurant chain, and they manage the men.”

    Of course! That’s the American Way, dammit! 😉

    Look, I don’t know or care enough what Dan Cathy thinks on every issue; I know he’s a businessman who has come under attack because of a PERCEPTION that he is opposed to gay marriage, when he may not have even considered that; regardless, that’s where America is at in the culture wars.

    I’m not going to accuse him of thinking or acting in bad faith, unless I see evidence of it.

    I agree with you that queers and polygamists aren’t directly responsible for those who self-identify as Christians getting divorced (except, obviously, in the case of men or women who decide they’re homos, and run off with someone of the same sex), and that there is a serious problem in the Church today, of allowing divorces to occur too readily, for frivolous reasons. And that it’s a serious problem that the Church ought to be addressing, one which is of its own making, in terms of its members allowing themselves to be influenced by the culture at large, and that the gay thing is a side issue, largely.

    That said, we here at Patriactionary are Red Pill social conservatives; we care not only about mens’ issues, but about standing up for Biblical truth, as well. And so we oppose gay marriage, and while Cathy may not have even been talking about it, the sodomites have made his words be about it, and so we take an interest in the ensuing ‘culture war’ battle occurring over them, that has resulted.

     
  10. Will S.

    August 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    @ John Doe: You misread me yet again: did you not see my comment to AR, above:

    “Blue Pill socons (unlike us Red Pill socons here at Patriactionary)”

    IOW, we here at this blog are Red Pill socons, just like you are. We’re like you. You are like us. Look around this blog, at our various posts, and you’ll see that. I presume you haven’t lurked here very long, and maybe are completely new to us. But we’re just like you. Seriously! Indeed, we agree, that social conservatism, done correctly, without Victorian notions of chivalry and pedestalization, is the best way to have a healthy, functioning society. You and we agree! 🙂

    Now that we’ve hopefully cleared that up, maybe we can get along better, since we’re actually all on the same side here! 🙂

    I’m going to take a look at your site; I may well end up adding you to our blogroll if I like what I see.

    Feel free to look around ours, and see if you like what you see; if we’re like you, as it seems.

    I’m sorry if I was somehow unclear in my language in this post and my subsequent comments; but I’m sure if you reread it, in the light of my other posts at this blog, you’ll see we’re on the same page, from what you’ve said.

    Cheers.

     
  11. Will S.

    August 4, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    @ John Doe: BTW, I’ve left some comments at your blog; they’re probably stuck in either spam or moderation, of course; WordPress always does that with new commenters on on of its blogs…

     
  12. Anonymous Reader

    August 4, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Look, I don’t know or care enough what Dan Cathy thinks on every issue; I know he’s a businessman who has come under attack because of a PERCEPTION that he is opposed to gay marriage, when he may not have even considered that; regardless, that’s where America is at in the culture wars.

    I consider it a simple free speech issue. Dan Cathy’s statement happens to be in line with not only a majority of Americans, but the position of the White House all of 6 months ago. The shrieking over-reaction to his modest statement suggests true free speech and “gay rights” are mutually exclusive. We can have one, but not both.

    What riles me up is the smug, brainless notion that only homosexual marriage is a threat to marriage. It is as if the last 40 years somehow just don’t register, for “defenders of marriage”.
    And the idea that buying a sandwich at chain C vs. chain B is a bold, daring strike protecting marriage is just pathetic. Sure, it’s a good idea to support Cathy’s chain against bullies. But c’mon, a whole lot more than that is needed.

    For a start, the truth needs telling, over and over again.

     
  13. Will S.

    August 4, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    @ AR: “I consider it a simple free speech issue. Dan Cathy’s statement happens to be in line with not only a majority of Americans, but the position of the White House all of 6 months ago. The shrieking over-reaction to his modest statement suggests true free speech and “gay rights” are mutually exclusive. We can have one, but not both.”

    Certainly, the gay-rights crowd don’t believe in actual freedom of speech, since they’re hell-bent on bludgeoning everyone into conformity or silence.

    “What riles me up is the smug, brainless notion that only homosexual marriage is a threat to marriage. It is as if the last 40 years somehow just don’t register, for “defenders of marriage”.”

    Agreed.

    “And the idea that buying a sandwich at chain C vs. chain B is a bold, daring strike protecting marriage is just pathetic. Sure, it’s a good idea to support Cathy’s chain against bullies. But c’mon, a whole lot more than that is needed. ”

    Exactly, a lot more.

    Actually, a case can be made that Chick-fil-A themselves are bullies, or their lawyers are, against anyone, no matter what kind of business they’re in, who have used the words ‘eat more’, as if they owned them:

    http://happolatismiscellany.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/the-difference-between-eat-more-kale-and-eat-mor-chikin/

    “For a start, the truth needs telling, over and over again.”

    Always does, man. People forget. Over and over.

     
  14. Will S.

    August 5, 2012 at 8:00 am

    “Every single christian that divorces, especially the christian women who file for divorce, knows that in her personal special case Jesus himself said it was ok, and that the various bits of the bible that condemn it don’t apply to her in this particular instance.”

    Unfortunately, that’s exactly how it works.

     
  15. Carnivore

    August 5, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    @AR They don’t dare actually condemn no-fault (actually “men’s fault”) divorce – because their wives would put them in the dog house, make them sleep on the couch, etc. But don’t forget, they are all he-man patriarchs. Their wives told them so…

    Hahaha, AR, you are a riot. Reminds me of an overheard conversation: Dad to 20-something son: “Why don’t you want to get married?” Son:”I don’t want to sleep on the couch like you do whenever there’s an argument.”

    And I like the following, too:
    Perhaps the wives find it easier to let the men manage the restaurant chain, and they manage the men. Again, I have personally observed more than one he-manly patriarch who will hold his wife’s purse on command, for as long as she wants – he’s a “patriarch” because she tells him so. And in the real world, Dan Cathy is one trip to divorce court away from a very different job, as millions of men have found out to their life long dismay.

    In case it’s not clear, I do agree with your comments.

     
  16. Will S.

    August 5, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    @ Carnivore: “Hahaha, AR, you are a riot. Reminds me of an overheard conversation: Dad to 20-something son: “Why don’t you want to get married?” Son:”I don’t want to sleep on the couch like you do whenever there’s an argument.””

    I agree; that’s one thing that makes me hesitant, is how many married men I know hand their balls over to their wives. Seriously, WTF? If a couple get in an argument, why do most men let their wives order them to the couch? No way would I do so, if ever I do marry; she can go sleep on the couch if she wants to! I wouldn’t leave my bed.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s