Lord Jim wrote:While I have absolutely no intention of getting involved in this discussion in any substantive way, (much like our President) it's worth pointing out that Massachusetts also has the second highest percentage of Catholics in it's population of any state (47% per cent....
I think Sue's was more of a tongue-in-cheek comment directed at the apocalytic scenarios conjured up by those opposed to SSM. However, I think we're long past the day that we can assume Catholics are less likely to get divorced than non-Catholics. A 2009 Gallup poll found that 71% of Catholics considered divorce to be morally acceptable, as compared to 67% of non-Catholics (among regular churchgoers, the numbers were 63% of Catholics and 46% of non-Catholics).
Gay marriage hasn't been legal anywhere in the US for more than a few years, and most of the folks who have availed themselves of it have been in long term committed relationships prior to getting married...
I think that is probably true. But what it also says is that those same-sex couples who are getting married are more committed to each other and to the idea of getting married than the "average", which rather flies in the face of claims by SSM opponents that their goal is to destroy the institution of marriage.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
If FFAC does indeed require the recognition of out-of-state marriages, why would FFAC have not merited even a mention in Loving v. Virginia, based on a law that not only voided interracial marriages but made it a criminal act to travel out-of-state to enter into one?[/quote]
Am sorry but I read that as Loving v. Vagina and got a little confused because of the topic!
Let's see...why would a poll ask if Catholics consider marriage to be "morally acceptable"?
To start with, any broken promise is "wrong," and the overt breach a solemn promise that was made before a priest/minister, witnesses, and hundreds of friends is morally wrong, regardless of what one believes in or doesn't. Indeed, atheists frequently claim to be more moral and ethical than religious people, so even an atheist would have to recognize that there is something wrong with breaking marriage vows.
So in that sense, divorce is never "morally acceptable" - or it shouldn't be - to anyone.
But people do make mistakes, and it is possible, I suppose, for anyone to get married without knowing the other person completely. People also change, people do bad things. So, there are circumstances in which no rational person would demand - on moral grounds - that an innocent spouse remain married to a scoundrel/cheat/whore/Bill Clinton.
Even the Catholic Church recognizes this, and it is possible - not even a problem, really - to remain a Catholic in good standing after being divorced. Happens all the time.
So what, exactly is the point of a survey that finds that 71% of Catholics find divorce morally acceptable? The question is utterly meaningless, as the answer is totally dependent on the specific situation.
It's like asking if it's morally acceptable to kill someone. The only rational answer is, "It depends."
How about this: Is it "morally acceptable" to divorce your spouse and marry someone else, if you find someone you like better than your present spouse?
I think "Catholics" might be rather more uniform in their response to that question. Liberals, of course, would find that conduct fine and dandy.
BTW, divorce rates are less and less meaningful as time goes by (even ignoring the statistical problems with them), as cohabitation increases. I suspect that fewer than 1/3 of the people getting married this year will remain married until one of the two spouses dies - which is the only meaningful way to measure the "divorce rate."
If both parties to an agreement decide that it is better that they dissolve the agreement than that they adhere to it, there is no broken promise.
A has obligations to B; B has obligations to A. A is perfectly free to relieve B of B's obligations to A, and B is perfectly free to relieve A of A's obligations to B. If A and B both choose to do so, neither of them has committed any breach of any promise to the other.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
I don't think I buy that, Andrew. This is not a "contract." Individuals may treat it in a way that is analogous to a contract, with "Open Marriages" and whatnot, but whether you are talking about civil marriage or marriage by a church, the level of commitment goes beyond that of a commercial arrangement that can be terminated for the convenience of one or both parties.
If they both choose to repudiate the promises then the moral ramifications don't cancel each other out, they double. Infidelity that is forgiven is still infidelity (breach).
How does it go, "I take you to be my lawful wedded [spouse] from this day forward...until death do us part"?
Churches can make whatever rules they want for their own members. But in secular law -- the law that governs all of us, not just the people who choose to belong to a particular religious club -- marriage is a contract. And the parties to a contract are free to discharge each other from contractual obligations. Which, unless there are third-party beneficiaries involved, is exactly as it should be. Why should the law require two people to remain in a contractual relationship if both of them want out? Whose interest does that serve?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Can my parents dissolve my obligations to them just by saying so? Could my brothers or my sister? What a foolish idea.
If marriage were merely a contract I would never have bothered. (I've said this before). I asked my wife today if she thought marriage was a contract and she said "no, it is a commitment".
So it wasn't intended to be an attempt at an answer.
You did not become your parents' child by agreeing with them to become their child. You did not become your brothers' and your sister's brother by agreeing with them to become their sibling. The purported analogy is silly.
Of course spouses are committed to each other. But marriage is not the commitment. Marriage is a formality recognizing the commitment that already exists before the marriage occurs.
Had you and your wife not committed yourselves to each other before the day you got married?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
A Cornish company has received interest from around the world for its novelty wedding vending machine.
Autowed is an 8ft (2.4m) tall pink machine compared by the makers to "a parking meter mixed up with a Cadillac".
But it has caught the imagination of people around the world after a video was posted on the internet.
Requests for machines have come from as away as Russia and Brazil, says Falmouth-based inventor Concept Shed.
For £1 it plays a specially composed intro version of the wedding march and asks customers to select their type of union. Bride and groom have the option of pressing one on a keyboard for "I do" and two for "Escape".
Purchasers get a wedding receipt and two plastic rings in an egg-shaped plastic capsule.
Previous inventions by the Cornwall firm include an animatronic Frankenstein.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
