|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: defense of traditional marriage
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I have sometimes wondered why folks who say they want to defend traditional, Biblical marriage haven't been more eager to try to ban, or significantly restrict, divorce. Some GOP legislators in North Carolina have apparently decided to try.
What do you think? Can they put the genie back in the bottle? Should they try? Why or why not?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
During the two year waiting period, the law would require couples to take courses designed improve communication skills and conflict resolution
Bit late in the day perhaps?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Well that kind of sucks.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Couples with children would have to take a four hour course on the negative effects that divorce can have on kids.
This should perhaps be included in pre-marriage, or at least antenatal courses.
I think once you get the point of suing for divorce, the game's pretty much up. Like Hugh just said - bit late in the day.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Couples with children would have to take a four hour course on the negative effects that divorce can have on kids.
This should perhaps be included in pre-marriage, or at least antenatal courses.
I think once you get the point of suing for divorce, the game's pretty much up. Like Hugh just said - bit late in the day.
Yes, people need to think more before marrying. ISTM a large percentage of failed marriages were entered to hastily and with little real understanding of what a healthy marriage entails.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I applaud them for at least having a bit of consistency.
And given all we've heard in recent marriage cases about the state's interest in promoting (heterosexual, procreative) marriage as a foundation for a stable society, there's at least an argument that the state should act interested when a marriage isn't working.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Are they really going for traditional marriage? Where the wife is her husband's property, with no rights over money she earns or inherits?
[ 31. March 2013, 11:15: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Are they really going for traditional marriage? Where the wife is her husband's property, with no rights over money she earns or inherits?
Darn cite easier to hold that kind of marriage together ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
It's said on every marriage thread, but I'm going to say it this time: stuff like this is pretty compelling evidence that the state needs to get out of the marriage business. Let people file for civil unions for taxes and benefits and all that, but if people want to enter the state of matrimony they can go to their church/synagogue/mosque/Asherah pole for the show.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Couples with children would have to take a four hour course on the negative effects that divorce can have on kids.
This should perhaps be included in pre-marriage, or at least antenatal courses.
I think once you get the point of suing for divorce, the game's pretty much up. Like Hugh just said - bit late in the day.
Often yes. Although giving people the chance to take a step back and see longer term consequences, provide some support, perhaps give hope that there are alternatives to divorce - could make a difference. I would interested in any evidence to show how far such interventions impact the divorce rate.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's said on every marriage thread, but I'm going to say it this time: stuff like this is pretty compelling evidence that the state needs to get out of the marriage business. Let people file for civil unions for taxes and benefits and all that, but if people want to enter the state of matrimony they can go to their church/synagogue/mosque/Asherah pole for the show.
In lots of countries the state just runs a parallel marriage business instead. It quite literally IS a civil union, as opposed to a religious one, but they still get away with calling it 'marriage'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Yep, it's how they do it in Germany. The trip from the Rathaus to the church is quite a big do.
The benefit of the civil union system is that we could talk about it without any of the religious morality that surrounds the idea of marriage. "It's just a legal thing, we ain't saying nuffink about teh gays either way," the argument could go.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
What do you think? Can they put the genie back in the bottle? Should they try? Why or why not?
I think they've got the proverbial snowballs chance in you-know-where of being successful. Even if passed, it would probably just significantly affect those without the resources to get a divorce in a less restrictive state. Those are the people statistically that are probably most likely to get divorced (i.e. lower end of the economic scale, etc.).
Since it was also brought up in this thread, I think calling civil unions something other than a marriage is just wordplay. I'm not specifically arguing for or against any particular position by stating that opinion. In the end, I think what we call marriage or civil union is majority enforced moral opinion. The arguments I have read for marriage equality, but for the continued disenfranchisement of other sorts of unions we find unpalatable (plural marriage, first cousins, and so on); just speak to that. This isn't about protection of individual rights. It's about what most people think is good and acceptable for society.
[ 31. March 2013, 14:27: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Yep, it's how they do it in Germany. The trip from the Rathaus to the church is quite a big do.
The benefit of the civil union system is that we could talk about it without any of the religious morality that surrounds the idea of marriage. "It's just a legal thing, we ain't saying nuffink about teh gays either way," the argument could go.
Part of my point, though, is that the civil system hasn't given up the word 'marriage' in those countries. The idea that the religious folk own the word hasn't (at least in most cases as far as I'm aware) been the way that it's been handled.
Although, the Roman Catholics in France are currently doing a fairly good job of behaving as if they own civil marriage laws.
There's certainly nothing about the etymology of the word that indicates it has special religious significance. It just means joining together of 2 things, whether it be 2 people or otherwise.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
The legal contract is entered into with minimal restrictions.
To make getting out of that contract onerous in comparison strike me as daft.
I agree marriage relationships are potentially a basis for a stable society. But if we are going to make marriages more stable, we have to focus on teaching little boys to be unselfish, respectful and self aware and little girls to not let any man walk all over them cause he's got a nice smile, money, a big whillie, voodoo powers, looks like her dad, etc. etc., even though he's selfish, doesn't respect her and is unaware of his actions.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Glenn Greenwald recently tweeted that he can't stop laughing whenever Rush Limbaugh says same sex marriage will destroy traditional marriage while he is sitting next to his fourth wife.
Recently it looks like the arguments against same sex marriage in the U.S. are winding down. When it comes down to court cases, all the opponents against gay marriage have is bible thumping and that doesn't play well in a U.S. court.
So the loud voices against gay marriage are changing the topic to how all they want is to keep Christians from being persecuted. See Dead Horsed for this topic.
The US theoretical separation of church and state may make this different then in other countries. Is this a dead horse topic as well? It does seem like a sea change rather than another lap on a dead equine.
[ 31. March 2013, 19:36: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Are they really going for traditional marriage? Where the wife is her husband's property, with no rights over money she earns or inherits?
As always with “traditional” it depends upon your start point. King Solomon, assuming much*, would probably have regarded the current definition as counter-intuitive, revolutionary and an affront to his deity-ordained status.
*Starting with his existence - though I imagine questioning that to be a somewhat dodgy career move for an NC politician.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In lots of countries the state just runs a parallel marriage business instead. It quite literally IS a civil union, as opposed to a religious one, but they still get away with calling it 'marriage'.
I really dont understand what you mean by quote:
but they still get away with calling it 'marriage'
I have said this before but my understanding is that there are only 3 essentials to marriage and two options extras:
Essentials
a) sex
b) commitment to each other
c) public declaration
Optional Extras
d) state registration - to get civil benefits
e) religious blessing - to get blessing/spiritual dimension
The OT is so full of marriages which only have a, b & c that I don't see how d &e can be essential to a 'Biblical' union even if they may be beneficial.
That being said, even if a Biblical Union is only a, b &c; I do see divorce being greatly discouraged - which was the original question. Personally I lived many years believing that, as a Christian man, I should do everything to avoid divorce and my faith was shaken by by ex leaving and having to come to terms with divorce. I feel both that hanging on in there allowed us to provide a good home and upbringing for the children but at some personal cost especially in the final years. Maybe traditionalists like me regard staying in the marriage as ideal but understand human fraililty and pragmatically accept, at least in this society, there is a limit and that in some circumstances it is better to divorce. I don't see that as incompatible.
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
MT, "getting away with" was a reference to the (erroneous) idea that churches dictate what is a marriage, with the State piggy backing onto an existing religious institution.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
But if we are going to make marriages more stable, we have to focus on teaching little boys to be unselfish, respectful and self aware and little girls to not let any man walk all over them cause he's got a nice smile, money, a big whillie, voodoo powers, looks like her dad, etc. etc., even though he's selfish, doesn't respect her and is unaware of his actions.
and to teach both boys and girls that marriage is more than being in lurve, and that you actually have to work at it. One might point out that the promises made are about things that you will co in the future ("I will") rather than about how you happen to feel at the moment.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Not sure, but this seems to me to be a bit cultural. (beware of my over-generalization). The clear trend where we live is for those who (1) are getting post-secondary education (2) waiting to get real jobs in the rather difficult, "I've got a BA (or BSc), can I get you anything with that latte", to cohabit, and not even consider marriage until they are pushing 30 or 35 and thinking of children. And maybe not even then.
The other group seem to get married in their early 20s, have kids early, and consider divorce 10 years later. The rules here are (1) they must take parenting education before family court will proceed with any decisions regarding children - mostly this involves the understanding of loyalty conflicts and typical effects on kids of divorce, (2) wait one full year after living separately. The rules apply to all married couples, including traditionally married gay and lesbian people, which seems only fair.
I'm wondering if this 'no fault divorce' structure is really that different, even within an area where we have a lot of cohabitting couples, who also have to take the parenting education if they split after having kids.
My final, more direct response is that I am not sure what exactly traditional marriage is. My mother had to stop working when she got married (1950s), and certainly women were generally let go when pregnant. They stayed home and were homemakers. Is this then a component of traditional marriage? Economic dependency, lack of independent decision making. Birth control was illegal here until sometime in the 1960s - wondering if this is also included? If we go back to biblical times, which is where 'traditional marriage' discussions often lead, but without adequate consideration of what is exactly meant. Are we considering that women are essentially property such that Jacob could earn two sisters to have as his wives?
(Personal note. Been married 30 years. I consider this 'conventional' versus traditional.)
[ 01. April 2013, 02:50: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's said on every marriage thread, but I'm going to say it this time: stuff like this is pretty compelling evidence that the state needs to get out of the marriage business. Let people file for civil unions for taxes and benefits and all that, but if people want to enter the state of matrimony they can go to their church/synagogue/mosque/Asherah pole for the show.
My counterproposal is that since most of the aspects of marriage are handled by the state these days, it's religions that should "get out of the marriage business". They can call it a "religious union" or whatever and can apply whatever crazy regulations and restrictions they like (which they can already do in most jurisdictions), while the state can go about business as usual issuing marriage licenses that are universal across its jurisdiction.
As far as the proposed bill goes, for situations of spousal abuse it just draws the process out a lot longer and provides the abusive party an additional legal tool with which to metaphorically beat their estranged spouse a few more times. For instance, suppose an abuser refused to take the "courses on (i) improving communication skills and (ii) conflict resolution." Does that mean the divorce can essentially be held hostage by one of the parties? Once again the party of "smaller government" shows that "smaller" just means "small enough to fit in your bedroom".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
from the article: quote:
It would also strike from the current law a provision that says “isolated incidents of sexual intercourse” don’t count against the one-year waiting period. It’s not clear if that means an occasional fling with your estranged partner does count against you under the proposed law.
How about isolated instances of black eyes or broken bones? Would either of those count for months or years off the process?
ETA: Interesting crosspost.
[ 01. April 2013, 04:27: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
When people start talking about "traditional marriage" as being of just one type throughout the history of the world, I wonder if they've ever bothered to look into it.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
My link above was to Wikipedia's "Types of Marriage" page. Here is the main marriage page, with more detail.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Is ever possible to do a controlled experiment to determine just how damaging divorce is to minors ?
I mean, is using kids to guilt-trip two people into living out the rest of their natural lives together , when both know they are unhappy, a good idea ?
Understandably it all gets a bit blurred once you're onto degrees of 'unhappiness' and degrees of 'damage'. Which is why simplistic proposals such as banning divorce find favour I guess , rather like alcohol prohibition . We know how successful that wasn't.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
My link above was to Wikipedia's "Types of Marriage" page. Here is the main marriage page, with more detail.
Especially the history section of this link.
This has been referenced in marriage debates on the hip before. But the references highlighting how small a part religious officials have played in traditional western culture is generally ignored by the "traditionalists."
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's said on every marriage thread, but I'm going to say it this time: stuff like this is pretty compelling evidence that the state needs to get out of the marriage business. Let people file for civil unions for taxes and benefits and all that, but if people want to enter the state of matrimony they can go to their church/synagogue/mosque/Asherah pole for the show.
Agreed on the role of the state. But if we're really going to change anything than the church/synagogue/mosque/Asherah pole has gotta up our game as well. We need to stop allowing ourselves to become agents of the consumerist culture and turning marriage into a TLC (tedious American cable channel devoted to exploiting freak culture) consumerist orgie/ "My lost weekend". We've got to suggest that marriage is about more than just a $30K wedding. We've gotta do some pretty counter-cultural things, which has always been our calling but has never been our long suit.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agreed on the role of the state. But if we're really going to change anything than the church/synagogue/mosque/Asherah pole has gotta up our game as well. We need to stop allowing ourselves to become agents of the consumerist culture and turning marriage into a TLC (tedious American cable channel devoted to exploiting freak culture) consumerist orgie/ "My lost weekend". We've got to suggest that marriage is about more than just a $30K wedding. We've gotta do some pretty counter-cultural things, which has always been our calling but has never been our long suit.
I think you mean "religious unions". ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Those countries with high divorce rates have a culture of divorce, and it would require a cultural shift to change things, not just tweaking a few laws in one part of the country, as is being proposed here. Is there much sign of a cultural shift in the USA?
Re children, many studies seem to suggests that children do seem to be worse off after divorce, particularly if the home environment wasn't an especially traumatic one for them before the breakup. (E.g., if a parent is having an affair but manages to maintain a facade of normality at home until the affair is discovered or revealed. Or, presumably, if the parents have simply 'grown apart'.) Nevertheless, divorce is an every day reality now, so children should probably be taught how to deal with it as a matter of course.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I've recently been seeing a lot of Facebook posts pointing to the distinction between "marriage" (a civil, legal contract, according to these posts), and "Holy Matrimony" (a religious sacrament).
I can go with that. I agree with whoever posted that government should stay out of the "marriage" business altogether. but that's not going to happen. attacking it from the opposite side may work better... leaving "marriage" as a civil form but "holy matrimony" up to religions makes sense, and may help certain religious types deal with the recent changes. after all, the government won't be recognizing "holy matrimony", just "marriage".
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I've recently been seeing a lot of Facebook posts pointing to the distinction between "marriage" (a civil, legal contract, according to these posts), and "Holy Matrimony" (a religious sacrament).
I can go with that. I agree with whoever posted that government should stay out of the "marriage" business altogether. but that's not going to happen. attacking it from the opposite side may work better... leaving "marriage" as a civil form but "holy matrimony" up to religions makes sense, and may help certain religious types deal with the recent changes. after all, the government won't be recognizing "holy matrimony", just "marriage".
It's a distinction the Roman Catholic Church has had to deal with for decades (if not centuries). Ever since the widespread legalization of divorce (and, more critically, remarriage thereafter) there's been an ever-growing number of marriages the RCC doesn't recognize as legitimate. That might be a useful model for any sect dealing with changes in civil law that aren't to its liking.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I have sometimes wondered why folks who say they want to defend traditional, Biblical marriage haven't been more eager to try to ban, or significantly restrict, divorce. Some GOP legislators in North Carolina have apparently decided to try.
What do you think? Can they put the genie back in the bottle? Should they try? Why or why not?
Whether this passes or not probably depends on the economic impact on divorce attorneys.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I've recently been seeing a lot of Facebook posts pointing to the distinction between "marriage" (a civil, legal contract, according to these posts), and "Holy Matrimony" (a religious sacrament).
I can go with that. I agree with whoever posted that government should stay out of the "marriage" business altogether. but that's not going to happen. attacking it from the opposite side may work better... leaving "marriage" as a civil form but "holy matrimony" up to religions makes sense, and may help certain religious types deal with the recent changes. after all, the government won't be recognizing "holy matrimony", just "marriage".
Won't that mean that a couple walking along the street consider themselves as "married", the people that pass them by see them as "married", but as soon as they walk into a church they have to consider themselves "unmarried"?
There is therefore a problem trying to separate religious marriage from secular marriage - unless we all become atheists (or Quakers, or Unitarians - but steer clear of any religion which is on the government Thought Police's black list.)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Won't that mean that a couple walking along the street consider themselves as "married", the people that pass them by see them as "married", but as soon as they walk into a church they have to consider themselves "unmarried"?
As I noted earlier, this is not a new problem. For example, Hank and Annie consider themselves to be married, and the state considers them married, but the RCC considers Hank to be married to his first wife Kate (and Annie to be his adulterous mistress). You could say their marital status changes as soon as they walk in a church, but it's more accurate to say they disagree with the church on this issue.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The RCC not only refuses to let divorcees marry, it refuses to recognize the marriages of people that have left the RCC and desire to marry according to their own rites, even if there is no other impediment to a valid marriage.
I hit on that little fact during my canon law course, and hell if I can understand it. Surely the person that left probably shouldn't care, but calling him or her a fornicator for it just seems spiteful.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The RCC not only refuses to let divorcees marry, it refuses to recognize the marriages of people that have left the RCC and desire to marry according to their own rites, even if there is no other impediment to a valid marriage.
I hit on that little fact during my canon law course, and hell if I can understand it. Surely the person that left probably shouldn't care, but calling him or her a fornicator for it just seems spiteful.
Most Catholics probably wouldn't use such an emotive word, but in any case, I think we need to stop seeing the RCC as special on these matters. It's just a religious group. Yes, it's a very big one, but it's still just one among may others. If you don't care what some random sect thinks of your marital arrangements then you don't have to care about the RCC either. Their spite, or whatever, is quite irrelevant.
In a pluralistic society it's going to be impossible to create a concept of marriage that everyone agrees with. Maybe it's time that we took that as read and worked with it.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Most Catholics probably wouldn't use such an emotive word, but in any case, I think we need to stop seeing the RCC as special on these matters. It's just a religious group. Yes, it's a very big one, but it's still just one among may others. If you don't care what some random sect thinks of your marital arrangements then you don't have to care about the RCC either. Their spite, or whatever, is quite irrelevant.
They're not a special case, but they're probably the best known one. One could just as easily cite Christian Identity's opposition to interracial marriages, or the weird stuff that goes on with the FLDS, but then a lot of time would have to be spent explaining what Christian Identity or FLDS actually are. That's a pretty big waste of time when there's a well-known example ready to use.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Of all the problems I see in it, the emotiveness of the words isn't one of them.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Most Catholics probably wouldn't use such an emotive word, but in any case, I think we need to stop seeing the RCC as special on these matters. It's just a religious group. Yes, it's a very big one, but it's still just one among may others. If you don't care what some random sect thinks of your marital arrangements then you don't have to care about the RCC either. Their spite, or whatever, is quite irrelevant.
They're not a special case, but they're probably the best known one. One could just as easily cite Christian Identity's opposition to interracial marriages, or the weird stuff that goes on with the FLDS, but then a lot of time would have to be spent explaining what Christian Identity or FLDS actually are. That's a pretty big waste of time when there's a well-known example ready to use.
I don't know about Christian Identity's oppostiion to interacial marriage, but so long as such opposition only applies to their inner circle and has no force in secular law, then that's their business. It's the same with whatever the RCC chooses to believe about divorce and remarriage, or about Pentecostal weddings, etc. Problems will only arise if these groups try to influence secular law, as they often do; but arguing under the banner of their religion surely undermines their case if they're claiming to speak on behalf of everyone.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Re children, many studies seem to suggests that children do seem to be worse off after divorce, particularly if the home environment wasn't an especially traumatic one for them before the breakup. (E.g., if a parent is having an affair but manages to maintain a facade of normality at home until the affair is discovered or revealed.
Yeah, been there .
To be fair the real guilt-trip kicked in once I'd walked . At least that's something I've been able to deal with without the kids having to witness it .
Looking back ? I'm sure it hasn't been easy for them, yet honestly I believe my daughter and son were headed for more problems had I tried much longer to maintain the facade of normality while, inside, feeling gut-wrenchingly shite.
This is from someone who used to be a firm believer in traditional marriage, (of the secular variety) . I've drawn no satisfaction from signing up to the divorce culture .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Re children, many studies seem to suggests that children do seem to be worse off after divorce, particularly if the home environment wasn't an especially traumatic one for them before the breakup. (E.g., if a parent is having an affair but manages to maintain a facade of normality at home until the affair is discovered or revealed. Or, presumably, if the parents have simply 'grown apart'.)
Studies are problematic. Unless someone invents a device to monitor multiple universes and compare couples who split in one, but not another.
The post divorce children's well being is largely affected by the parent's subsequent relationship with each other.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Nevertheless, divorce is an every day reality now, so children should probably be taught how to deal with it as a matter of course.
As I think the parents are the single biggest factor, good luck with this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
...yet honestly I believe my daughter and son were headed for more problems had I tried much longer to maintain the facade of normality while, inside, feeling gut-wrenchingly shite...
My siblings and I still carry the emotional scars from growing up with parents who stuck together, but probably shouldn't have. True, it was an earlier generation when divorce was scandalous, but that didn't make it easier on us.
While it may very well be the case that children of divorced parents, on average, have more problems than those of those whose parents remained married, the real comparison that needs to be made here is whether children of disfunctional relationships are better off if the parents divorce or stay together.
Otherwise you are distorting the statistics by including functional relationships where the parents aren't considering divorce.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
lilbuddha and rolyn
I understand that lots of factors are involved in the outcome of divorce, so it's not a case of saying that divorce = children's lives blighted. However, I also suspect we're all tempted to look at the issue in a way that best supports our prior position, or that justifies our own decisions or interests. That's just human nature, and there's no point in any of us getting too pious about it. In any case, as I say, it is what it is. Marriage, divorce and family breakdown is something that teachers of social studies (PSHE in England) could cover in schools. Maybe some schools already do this.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
...yet honestly I believe my daughter and son were headed for more problems had I tried much longer to maintain the facade of normality while, inside, feeling gut-wrenchingly shite...
My siblings and I still carry the emotional scars from growing up with parents who stuck together, but probably shouldn't have. True, it was an earlier generation when divorce was scandalous, but that didn't make it easier on us.
While it may very well be the case that children of divorced parents, on average, have more problems than those of those whose parents remained married, the real comparison that needs to be made here is whether children of disfunctional relationships are better off if the parents divorce or stay together.
Otherwise you are distorting the statistics by including functional relationships where the parents aren't considering divorce.
This reminds of the famous line from Larkin's poem: 'They f*** you up, your mum and dad.' Perhaps the truth is that whether parents stay together or separate, they make a mess of their children, one way or another! This is original sin in its most obvious form! Would Freud et al have agreed?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Marriage, divorce and family breakdown is something that teachers of social studies (PSHE in England) could cover in schools. Maybe some schools already do this.
I agree with you there .
Taking away the taboo and stigma of divorce in this day and age would be a good idea . I know many will start jumping up and down saying -- This will only make matters worse, (I would have been one of them).
Also it would be quite difficult to say to school kids you may feel like such an such if ever your parents split. I imagine it's like bereavement, you never really know until you've had it happen.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
I think if they really want to have "biblical" marriage, they should also allow men to have more than one wife, not to mention all the concubines he can care for. And while we are at it, can we also stone adulterers and make rapists marry their victims? I'd also like to see it made law again that when a man dies without children, his widow has to marry his male next of kin. Let's have REAL biblical marriage!
--------------------
My cooking blog: http://inthekitchenwithdon.blogspot.com/
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Won't that mean that a couple walking along the street consider themselves as "married", the people that pass them by see them as "married", but as soon as they walk into a church they have to consider themselves "unmarried"?
That would be "unmarried unrepentant fornicators "
Or there's the reverse - people that are married in the eyes of their church, but not the state. This certainly applies to the plural marriages in some of the LDS offshoots.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I agree with you there .
Taking away the taboo and stigma of divorce in this day and age would be a good idea . I know many will start jumping up and down saying -- This will only make matters worse, (I would have been one of them).
There is a balance here. There is a chasm between seeing divorce as simply part of a relationship cycle and stigmatizing it. I don't care for either. Understand, I do not advocate making it difficult.
I know I am hopeless, but I think emphasis on what makes a good marriage is a way to reduce the incidence of divorce.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Taking away the taboo and stigma of divorce in this day and age would be a good idea.
Is there really much so much stigma now? In an age and a country where almost half of all babies are born outside of marriage anyway? I suppose it depends on where you live; maybe there are still a few old-fashioned middle class suburbs and close-knit villages where divorce is frowned upon, but most children in most places now will surely have classmates who live outside of the nuclear family unit. Maybe you're living in the wrong place! There's obviously a price to be paid for living in a 'nice' area...!
[ 01. April 2013, 17:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
