If the Serial Fornicator is More Forgiven and Accepted than the Divorced Person, Why Bother Risking Marriage?

They're just transidentity. Are you a transidentityphobe? So much hate.

Dag nab it, Bees - you just exposed me.

Nobody is going to vote for a transidentityphobe in the next election.

There goes MY bid for president in 2020.

NOW what am I going to do with all my time... Write threads on CC???

Hmmmm.....I'm thinking....... nah - go ahead and run for President.

Yeah! I'd vote for ya!

So, does this apply to you as well?

I had two thoughts when I read this:

1. Thank goodness I only take into account anything I say on the internet about 10% of the time.

2. Where would catfish fall under this, since they are pretending to be 100% someone else, 100% of the time?

The vow is the tipping point. The marriage failed and no one is privy to the reasons. Few can scrutinize both parties and hear their story. In most instances, you’re hearing from one person. Humans are apt to clean things up a bit.

No one is eagerly lining up to marry womanizers or someone with children. I’ve advised single fathers in the past with similar frustrations. People are unwilling to take on problems not of their making. Whether its debt, health issues, familial responsibilities or something else.

Baggage is frowned upon in our culture. Divorce isn’t the lone issue people avert. Ask singles dealing with mental illness or social anxiety how they fare. Or those with fewer resources than others. More weight than the rest. Less attractiveness and so on.

We value the exception not the norm.

Tangent from the thread topic to some degree:

I have not found having a child to be a deterrent to the men I have dated. I have actually found it to be the opposite. I have disqualified men, who wanted to continue to pursue me, because they didn't meet my standards when it came to influencing my son.

From my understanding and study of this, God is a very understanding God, if your in a bad relationship and find the one, I doubt very much he would condemn you for trying again with the right person. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, past, present and future. My rule is to always follow the heart, you just know by instinct that your dating /marrying the right person. And prayer of course.

Ummm.... if you know by instinct who the right one is, how is it possible that so many people marry and then later divorce someone they thought was right but decided later on was wrong? Either instinct is unreliable, we don't follow it well, or the "right one" is more the right now one than the right forever one.

And don't get me started on wiggle words like God is an understanding God. Yes I believe God understands our motivations and struggles and failures even better than we do, no I don't think any of that understanding on God's part is going to cause him to spare us the consequences of disobedience (though a lot of people try to make it that an understanding God is a God who excuses anything in the right circumstances).

Did you ever inquire why that’s the case?

Some men are willing to accept a child if she possesses qualities he desires in the measure he wants. If she enters with others beyond that her value is raised. In spite of the impediments some would cite.

Attractiveness, wealth, poise, social standing, and disposition can offset much.

If by inquiring you mean asking them why they would want to be with me when I have a child, then no. I knew why they wanted to be with me, but I also needed to know if they would value my son as much as they valued me.

That being said, I understand and agree with your overall point in your post.

I have had quite a few Christian males tell me that as a divorced woman, I have no business posting in the Singles Forum, and would cause any man who might be interested in talking to me to commit adultery.

May God have mercy on us all.

I've heard that argument before but it can't be true because JEsus told the woman at the well that she had no husband even though she had been married 5 times. I'm sure she must have had 5 wedding nights as well.

Actually, what you're using as an argument here as a reason that "it can't be true" isn't relevant to that at all. And therefore cannot be used as an argument to prove true or false the claim that "if you have sex with someone you are marrying them according to scripture".

John 4:17 Jesus is saying essentially, because you're not with your original husband, the one you're currently with is not your husband. Therefore she speaks true to say "I have no husband". It DOESN'T mean that sex didn't consummate her original, legal marriage. Or that sex couldn't be the act to make marriage official. Just to note I'm not speculating on that as being true or false, I haven't considered the topic enough to draw a conclusion.

Are two wed if they do not consummate? So one can argue here that consummation is only legitimate in a couples first marriage, and other legal marriages. Like in the case she was widowed and re-married. Otherwise if a woman was divorced, she was to remain single, or reconcile to her original husband. One could also speculate with potential accuracy to say it's possible the 5 husbands that are referred to here are all illegitimate, and there's a sixth unmentioned husband which was her legitimate husband. Why? Because Jesus does recognize '5 husbands' in a social/worldy sense, but also saying she's not currently wed/with a husband, and surely that's the latest one of the five.

Commentary from biblehub below confirms my understanding here. You can read the full commentary from the site, the complete of both were a little too much I felt to paste here.

https://biblehub.com/john/4-17.htm

Pulpit Commentary
Verses 17, 18. - The woman answered, and said to him, I have no husband. Jesus saith unto her, Thou said correctly, Husband have I none: for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband. This true thing hast thou spoken. The woman resists the description which Jesus assumes that she bears to the man with whom she stands in illegal relations. Convinced, brought to bay, she cannot lie to Jesus. She says, in penitence and shame, "I have no husband." There is no concealment of the fact; she must need the cleansing of the life-giving stream. Jesus, not without a tone of solemn remonstrance, accuses her of a life of loose morals. It is implied that the first five husbands were conventionally allowable; but the suggestion is that, either by divorce or wanton rushing to further nuptials if the former had been ruptured by death, her character had been ever deteriorating until, under present circumstances, she was committing an overt act of illegality and impurity.