Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All this is the Tradition to which I refer and contrast the 14 years of jaded sexual promiscuity before marrying at 26, often followed by immediate divorce, and/or single motherhood or multiple other marriages thereafter.
LOL! Even the Christian version of marriage was invented during an era when people were considered old and wise "graybeards" if they made it to 40.
When all of this religious mambo-jahambo about "until death do us part" never envisioned living to age 80 and beyond. The fact is that people change over time, so if you marry young and live to be old, the person you married will be virtually unrecognizable by middle age. Yes, yes, I know there are exceptions, but quite often once the children grow up and "empty nest" syndrome sets in, the infidelity chance goes through the roof.
Sorry but that's the way it is, and imposing strict marriage laws isn't going to change human nature.
LOL! Even the Christian version of marriage was invented during an era when people were considered old and wise "graybeards" if they made it to 40.
When all of this religious mambo-jahambo about "until death do us part" never envisioned living to age 80 and beyond. The fact is that people change over time, so if you marry young and live to be old, the person you married will be virtually unrecognizable by middle age. Yes, yes, I know there are exceptions, but quite often once the children grow up and "empty nest" syndrome sets in, the infidelity chance goes through the roof.
Sorry but that's the way it is, and imposing strict marriage laws isn't going to change human nature.
I expect my partner to change over decades but I also expect them to share my commitment to change along with them. One couple I heard about had an agreement: if one would get ahead of the other, they'd slow down and let the other catch up. Never leave each other in the dust.
Of course there's always the chance the other will not catch up. People do grow apart. People do have to eventually give back their projections and may or may not be able to live with what's left. But I feel that if two people agree to and truly commit to a life together, and they wait to marry until they both truly know themselves, they can make it work way more often than not. The problem is that both parties have to want it the same and work at it the same, and have enough personal maturity to be constant.
I expect my partner to change over decades but I also expect them to share my commitment to change along with them. One couple I heard about had an agreement: if one would get ahead of the other, they'd slow down and let the other catch up. Never leave each other in the dust.
Of course there's always the chance the other will not catch up. People do grow apart. People do have to eventually give back their projections and may or may not be able to live with what's left. But I feel that if two people agree to and truly commit to a life together, and they wait to marry until they both truly know themselves, they can make it work way more often than not. The problem is that both parties have to want it the same and work at it the same, and have enough personal maturity to be constant.
True, and like I said, there will always be exceptions - those that really do make it work. For many, perhaps even most, it really doesn't work. Even if they stay together for whatever reason, they're not really happy with each other, and the kids pick up on that. It can be an oppressive environment for children to grow up in a loveless home even if the parents treat the child well.
Most people realize that one of the central features of modern American fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism is a distinctive vision of gender roles both in society at large and in the family in particular. When fundamentalists are criticized, it is often on the basis of their perceived reactionary ideas about women, sex, and gender. What many may not realize, however, is these ideas aren’t simply central to fundamentalism, but were in fact key to its original formation. Book Review - Ungodly Women: Gender and the First Wave of American Fundamentalism, by Betty A. Deberg
When a debate about "tradition" and "feminism" arises, I always think of Marie Shear, who's paraphrasing of Cheris Kramarae pretty much sums it all up for me.
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
Nice copy and paste from newadvent.org. Maybe try giving them some credit next time you use their material word for word in half your post.
Maybe this issue is important to Catholics. I can tell you that there are loads of people out there who couldn't care less about The Council of Trent or any other Catholic/Christian marriage tradition; nearly 70% of the world does not share your faith. What people do and should care about in marriages is love, respect, kindness, and family.
I'm sorry equal rights and feminism upsets you so. Maybe these are harsh truths for you to hear, but women are equal to men. We are not property. There's nothing shameful about sex before marriage. Or same sex relationships. Or consenting poly relationships. Or whatever legal adult relationship configuration you want.
Men have no right to the head of the household -- it should be a shared role between the adults in the relationship.
If you want Christian marriage, then fine. Get married in a church and live your life that way; no one's trying to stop you. Just don't expect everyone else to live by your ancient code of morality.
That's more or less my take. Reading the link, I got a sense of 'ok, that's what Catholics say marriage is. Where do they get off telling everyone else that is what it should be?' High time as another poster said, that legal processes were arranged according to secular law, not to the doctrinal preferences of god -believers.
The Churches ..well I was going to say 'They can stick to their interpretation of marriage if they want -nobody is forcing them...' but I gather that there is an element of forcing them to change their take on marriage or break secular law. That is, to refuse to conduct gay and lesbian marriages would be discrimination and illegal. I can see that would get their knickers in a twist and I have some sympathy with them.
I would advise them to refer to the 'religious sentiment outweighs law' precedents. There were some cases where a secular employee had to toe the line despite religious convictions (Do the job or get another) but in a religious institution I think they could get a stay of execution, at least until they get used to the idea. yes, I an atheist, sympathize with them over the impossible position of being legally required to act against their beliefs in their own churches, and I would ask that they not be forced to do something so abhorrent to them.
The gay or lesbian couple can find another church or office. In fact, if their own church will not marry them, I would strongly suggest that they do so - permanently.
...in a religious institution I think they could get a stay of execution, at least until they get used to the idea. yes, I an atheist, sympathize with them over the impossible position of being legally required to act against their beliefs in their own churches, and I would ask that they not be forced to do something so abhorrent to them.
The gay or lesbian couple can find another church or office. In fact, if their own church will not marry them, I would strongly suggest that they do so - permanently.
I agree with you, as well as with jjrose. As much as I think it's wrong to discriminate against same sex couples, a church should have the right to marry couples according to their traditions.
Something interesting about the text the OP copied: according to New Advent, it was published in 1910. That's over 100 years for attitudes to change into what they are today about marriage. No wonder it seems so outdated to many of us.
Quote:
MLA citation. Lehmkuhl, Augustinus. "Sacrament of Marriage." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 9 Dec. 2013 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm>.
Another thing I had a laugh at from that same link:
Quote:
As we have several times emphasized, not every marriage is a true sacrament, but only marriages between Christians. One becomes and remains a Christian in the sense recognized here through valid baptism. Hence only one who has been validly baptized can contract a marriage which is a sacrament; but every one can contract it who has been validly baptized, whether he has remained true to the Christian faith, or become a heretic, or even an infidel. Such has always been the teaching and practice of the Church. Through baptism one "becomes a member of Christ and is incorporated in the body of the Church", as declared in the Florentine Decree for the Armenians; so far as law is concerned, he remains irrevocably subject to the Church, and is therefore, in legal questions, always to be considered a Christian. Hence it is a general principle that all baptized persons are subject to universal ecclesiastical laws, especially marriage laws unless the Church makes an exception for individual cases or classes. Hence not only the marriage between Catholics, but also that contracted by members of the different sects which have retained baptism and validly baptize, is undoubtedly a sacrament. It matters not whether the non-Catholic considers marriage a sacrament or not, or whether he intends to effect a sacrament or not.
Basically the Church expects you to follow this law if you've EVER been baptized by any Christian church, even if you leave the faith. Pretty convenient for a church who regularly baptizes infants.
Last edited by Ohio Hello; 12-09-2013 at 12:10 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
