G
GodIsWithUs
Guest
I’ve been asked this by pro-homosexual marriage people. What do you think?
If Homosexual marriage should be banned in the name of the family unit, why not ban divorce?
- Status
B
Bennie_P
Guest
In the state of Arkansas they have what you call covenant marriage which the couples agree before marriage to seek counseling to attempt to save thier marriage if trouble arises, it makes it more difficult to divorce. It is isn’t forced upon people, but is attempt to stress the importance of marriage. and yes Arakansa has defined marriage as being between a man and women.
Most that oppose gay marriage also oppose easy divorce and the Catholic Church teaches against.
So, if the ‘gay’ community wants to get back at all of us homophobes that are against ‘gay’ marriage and want to make it harder for men and women to get divorce or ban it, I say go for it.
I back them up on that idea…
littlerock.about.com/b/2005/02/14/covenant-marriage.htm
E
edwest2
Guest
I know too many people who have 2, sometimes 3, divorces under their belt. No-Fault Divorce has made it too easy to just quit. Any relationship requires work and a commitment.
Divorce should be rare. A system was in place where people actually dated without having sex. The “have sex with anyone” revolution damaged that concept, helping to create today’s hook-up culture. A lack of respect and shame has also added to the mess.
Sex activists are looking to render the idea of the family obsolete, to the detriment of society in general. Already, there are those into bestiality calling for their ‘rights.’ Not to mention MANBLA. Then there is what is being proposed Beyond Gay Marriage:
firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330
Peace,
Ed
Divorce should be rare. A system was in place where people actually dated without having sex. The “have sex with anyone” revolution damaged that concept, helping to create today’s hook-up culture. A lack of respect and shame has also added to the mess.
Sex activists are looking to render the idea of the family obsolete, to the detriment of society in general. Already, there are those into bestiality calling for their ‘rights.’ Not to mention MANBLA. Then there is what is being proposed Beyond Gay Marriage:
firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330
Peace,
Ed
1
1ke
Guest
Of course.
Does this person who proposed this absurd question to you not realize that is where we started? It has only been in the last 50 years that divorce laws have been liberalized.
We are moving backwards-- away from what “should” be-- divorce, contraception, abortion, homosexual marriage, etc should ALL be illegal as they once were.
Does this person who proposed this absurd question to you not realize that is where we started? It has only been in the last 50 years that divorce laws have been liberalized.
We are moving backwards-- away from what “should” be-- divorce, contraception, abortion, homosexual marriage, etc should ALL be illegal as they once were.
J
JimG
Guest
When Ronald Reagan first started out in political life, divorce was so rare, that the fact of his divorce from his first wife was considered a near fatal political liability.
I am so old that during my elementary and high school years, I can recall having no friends or acquaintences either in my schools, parish or neighborhood, Catholic or not Catholic, whose parents were or ever had been divorced.
In the rare case that a divorce was sought, the party seeking it had to prove serious grounds before it would be granted by a court.
All that changed with no-fault divorce.
Now the divorce rate has exploded.
That was followed by casual sex outside marriage (aka fornication), cohabitation, large scale pornography, and finally, appeals for gay marriage.
I am so old that during my elementary and high school years, I can recall having no friends or acquaintences either in my schools, parish or neighborhood, Catholic or not Catholic, whose parents were or ever had been divorced.
In the rare case that a divorce was sought, the party seeking it had to prove serious grounds before it would be granted by a court.
All that changed with no-fault divorce.
Now the divorce rate has exploded.
That was followed by casual sex outside marriage (aka fornication), cohabitation, large scale pornography, and finally, appeals for gay marriage.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
I suggest we Catholics seek to ban governemnt from marriage. I care not if the government sanctions my marriage because it is mostly for income tax purposes which I oppose. They care not what ‘god’ I dedicate it to. If seculars can demand religious speech/activity be withdrawn from public life as in schools and public property, and forbiddeen by threat of tax (violates 1st Amendment) to talk politics in Chruch, then the flip side is anything religious is off limits to government.
The gay agenda to demand ‘marriage’ is two-fold I think:
1st is to gain property rights and equal access to spousal benefits like Social Security, medical information, insurance coverage…business elements not realted to what I see my marriage as. These are maybe valid human rights and equal rights issues.
2nd is to force religions to become more secular in allowing these marriages in churches like the call to allow women and/or homosexual priests, forcing religious hospitals to perform mandated services such as abortion or euthinasia. I do not see any of that as human or equal right issues.
I suggest Catholics in particular not object to civil unions in the sense that we all have the ability to do wrong as well as do what is right, as long as the governemtn or any group outside of our faith makes no lawfull demands to modify our practices. The Church already does not recognize marriages made in from of a civil JP.
I do not support Constitutional Amendments to ban gay marriage or even governemnt programs like the Defensive Marriage Act to define marriage as between one man-one woman only, because when the majority unify to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions for whatever reason as an example, we would have less of an argument to protest that while using governemnt approval to define marriage.
If two men want to ‘marry’ what is that to me if the insurance company gives one rate or another, or if one partner is allowed to speak for the other if they are incapacitated at a hospital?
The trickier topics like adoption and artificial insemination for say lesbian couples should maybe be left to our Doctrine as Catholics to vote on in the public square. These thing sare happening now and all we can rightfully do is voice our opinion just as others do, but we must be consistant.
Unless we enact a Catholic theocracy in America (which I do not support) we have to allow others the ability to live their life as they see fit as long as it does not endanger other human beings. Yes, I know the arguments of how the active gay lifestyle is unhealthy physically and spiritually to the public at large but that is the price of free will. As with all things it is how we act individually that is ultimately judged, and we are obligated to advocate traditional marriage for traditional reasons among the many other elements of faith we believe to non-Catholics.
The gay agenda to demand ‘marriage’ is two-fold I think:
1st is to gain property rights and equal access to spousal benefits like Social Security, medical information, insurance coverage…business elements not realted to what I see my marriage as. These are maybe valid human rights and equal rights issues.
2nd is to force religions to become more secular in allowing these marriages in churches like the call to allow women and/or homosexual priests, forcing religious hospitals to perform mandated services such as abortion or euthinasia. I do not see any of that as human or equal right issues.
I suggest Catholics in particular not object to civil unions in the sense that we all have the ability to do wrong as well as do what is right, as long as the governemtn or any group outside of our faith makes no lawfull demands to modify our practices. The Church already does not recognize marriages made in from of a civil JP.
I do not support Constitutional Amendments to ban gay marriage or even governemnt programs like the Defensive Marriage Act to define marriage as between one man-one woman only, because when the majority unify to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions for whatever reason as an example, we would have less of an argument to protest that while using governemnt approval to define marriage.
If two men want to ‘marry’ what is that to me if the insurance company gives one rate or another, or if one partner is allowed to speak for the other if they are incapacitated at a hospital?
The trickier topics like adoption and artificial insemination for say lesbian couples should maybe be left to our Doctrine as Catholics to vote on in the public square. These thing sare happening now and all we can rightfully do is voice our opinion just as others do, but we must be consistant.
Unless we enact a Catholic theocracy in America (which I do not support) we have to allow others the ability to live their life as they see fit as long as it does not endanger other human beings. Yes, I know the arguments of how the active gay lifestyle is unhealthy physically and spiritually to the public at large but that is the price of free will. As with all things it is how we act individually that is ultimately judged, and we are obligated to advocate traditional marriage for traditional reasons among the many other elements of faith we believe to non-Catholics.
B
buffalo
Guest
No fault divorce laws are a mojor contributor to the demise of the family. If one cares about children then they should consider overturning these laws and make it very difficult to get a divorce.
Bottom line - live with your decisions and make it work.
Bottom line - live with your decisions and make it work.
P
Polaris
Guest
Well if some on honestly agrees here is the petition.
thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce
thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
with an acception made for abuse, then i would fully support outlawing divorce. i think no fault divorce is one of the worst ideas ever.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
yep, ban divorce after a set amount of time or kids, or some apropriate criteria
R
RobbyS
Guest
Well, divorce was virtually banned, and adultery was regared as a crime. The same slackening of morals that has produced such tolerance for homosexuality produced the earlier slackening in favor of divorce and adultery. I would be happn to go in the opposite direction.
J
JimG
Guest
At one time in the not so recent past, adultelry, fornication, and sodomy, and the sale of contraceptives were all illegal. It was the same ‘right of privacy’ found by the SCOTUS in Griswold that led to the legalization of all these matters. And it was the widespread use of contraception that started and promoted the spread of all these, to the detriment of lifetime marriage.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
Be careful don’t give personal information on the petition it is being used to gathering information of those that support Prop 8.
From the petition.
It seems to but innocent but is asking you for your name, mailing address, etc to used to itimidate you or harrass you.
K
Kolbe300
Guest
I have often wondered why the divorce epidemic of today seems to be so accepted. Personally, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that divorce seems to be a problem for the majority, rather than the minority. We talk about this “no fault” divorce. It’s not only horrible, it’s secular. It has nothing to do with the Church. Unfortunately, the Church’s record with annulments doesn’t seem to be much better. It’s something I’ve never been able to understand.
In doing some research I found that in 2005, nearly 82 percent of annulment requests were granted. 82%… I recently heard a host on Catholic radio warn a woman that “every once in a while” an annulment isn’t granted. Every once in a while? Am I the only one that thinks it should be just the opposite, that an annulment should only be granted “every once in a while.”
The Bible records what Jesus himself had to say (in His own words) about divorce. He makes it very clear what is right and what is not. How then are annulments being granted to a large majority of those requesting them? A granted annulment means the marriage never existed. It makes me wonder how many people right now who think they are married really aren’t. I don’t understand how this is the one sacrament we’re allowed to get wrong. The system is broken, and the risks of getting something this important wrong are eternal.
Peace.
In doing some research I found that in 2005, nearly 82 percent of annulment requests were granted. 82%… I recently heard a host on Catholic radio warn a woman that “every once in a while” an annulment isn’t granted. Every once in a while? Am I the only one that thinks it should be just the opposite, that an annulment should only be granted “every once in a while.”
The Bible records what Jesus himself had to say (in His own words) about divorce. He makes it very clear what is right and what is not. How then are annulments being granted to a large majority of those requesting them? A granted annulment means the marriage never existed. It makes me wonder how many people right now who think they are married really aren’t. I don’t understand how this is the one sacrament we’re allowed to get wrong. The system is broken, and the risks of getting something this important wrong are eternal.
Peace.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Recent history tells why everything broke down:
1960 The Birth Control Pill
No porn on TV or radio. No shock jocks. The whole family could watch TV together and not be offended. Divorce was rare. If you wanted a ‘girlie’ magazine, you had to go to a liquor store where they might have a few behind the counter. You had to be 21. Owning one was considered sinful.
Families were generally close. People, young and old, were taught to respect each other. You didn’t cuss or swear in public. In Catholic school, the girls’ skirts had to cover their knees.
We kids were taught modesty in speech and dress. You said please and thank you. God was always on my mind.
Stores were closed on Sundays. There was a Nativity in front of the local City Hall around Christmas.
1968 Atheist Hippies in colorful clothes want all us kids to trust them! Don’t trust anyone over 30, which includes mom, dad, priests and nuns. Use dope! It’ll expand your mind! (LSD was a dangerous hallucinogen that caused psychotic episodes in some cases).
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church tells all Catholics. Don’t use the birth control pill or even condoms. You are responsible for your sexuality. It is meant as an act of mutual self-giving and while pleasure is a part, it is primarily for the purpose of bringing the next generation into the world.
For the Hippies, marriage was out. A Hippie friend of mine told me at the time, “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.”
Free Love! Have sex with anyone whenever you want.
1970s All of a sudden all those girlie magazines with partial nudity turned into magazines with graphic images of prostitution. So-called Adult Bookstores opened all over the country. A bunch of lawyers were paid money to get this done.
1973 Please, please have compassion on those poor young women who can’t get an abortion and who will likely die if they go to a back-alley abortionist! Please! We Catholics were told “It’s likely to be the hardest decision a woman will ever have to make and is between her and her God.” Almost needless to say, God dropped out of the picture entirely.
1978 A radical anti-family group called the National Organization for Women told all women that they are the victims of the eternal enemy - men. They created fear, suspicion and separation between the sexes. A perfect marketing plan for…
1980s No-Fault Divorce. I opened the newspaper to see dozens of ads from lawyers: No kids? $75 bucks and you’re out! Call 800-DIVORCE.
Meanwhile, television is turning bad. Sue Ellen on Dallas drinking liquor straight from the bottle while driving. Her husband, J.R. Ewing, is pure evil
Porn on cable and in motels.
1990s Into the abyss. Pornographic lyrics on mainstream records. Shock jocks who cuss and swear and who promote prostitutes called “porn stars.” Church attendance is way down. People have switched from worshipping God to going to the mall.
Meanwhile, on ABC, they put on NYPD Blue, featuring cussing and swearing and partial nudity.
Porn all over the internet.
So Catholics fell for the “try it, you’ll like it” idea. Hey. Being faithful to God is difficult. Forget about God, they said. They were atheists after all. Party. Buy stuff! Pleasure, pleasure, pleasure. Husband or wife a pain? Divorce 'em. Life a pain? Get high. Got pregnant by mistake? Get an abortion. What’s the big deal? It’s all ‘good.’ Listen to us.
The Church didn’t change, but Catholics made a choice. Now some of us are so far away from the true and practical advice of the Church, we don’t know what to do. Go back to Church. Talk to the priest. Seek God in your prayers and daily. Turn away from the way the world lives.
I encourage you.
God bless,
Ed
1960 The Birth Control Pill
No porn on TV or radio. No shock jocks. The whole family could watch TV together and not be offended. Divorce was rare. If you wanted a ‘girlie’ magazine, you had to go to a liquor store where they might have a few behind the counter. You had to be 21. Owning one was considered sinful.
Families were generally close. People, young and old, were taught to respect each other. You didn’t cuss or swear in public. In Catholic school, the girls’ skirts had to cover their knees.
We kids were taught modesty in speech and dress. You said please and thank you. God was always on my mind.
Stores were closed on Sundays. There was a Nativity in front of the local City Hall around Christmas.
1968 Atheist Hippies in colorful clothes want all us kids to trust them! Don’t trust anyone over 30, which includes mom, dad, priests and nuns. Use dope! It’ll expand your mind! (LSD was a dangerous hallucinogen that caused psychotic episodes in some cases).
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church tells all Catholics. Don’t use the birth control pill or even condoms. You are responsible for your sexuality. It is meant as an act of mutual self-giving and while pleasure is a part, it is primarily for the purpose of bringing the next generation into the world.
For the Hippies, marriage was out. A Hippie friend of mine told me at the time, “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.”
Free Love! Have sex with anyone whenever you want.
1970s All of a sudden all those girlie magazines with partial nudity turned into magazines with graphic images of prostitution. So-called Adult Bookstores opened all over the country. A bunch of lawyers were paid money to get this done.
1973 Please, please have compassion on those poor young women who can’t get an abortion and who will likely die if they go to a back-alley abortionist! Please! We Catholics were told “It’s likely to be the hardest decision a woman will ever have to make and is between her and her God.” Almost needless to say, God dropped out of the picture entirely.
1978 A radical anti-family group called the National Organization for Women told all women that they are the victims of the eternal enemy - men. They created fear, suspicion and separation between the sexes. A perfect marketing plan for…
1980s No-Fault Divorce. I opened the newspaper to see dozens of ads from lawyers: No kids? $75 bucks and you’re out! Call 800-DIVORCE.
Meanwhile, television is turning bad. Sue Ellen on Dallas drinking liquor straight from the bottle while driving. Her husband, J.R. Ewing, is pure evil
Porn on cable and in motels.
1990s Into the abyss. Pornographic lyrics on mainstream records. Shock jocks who cuss and swear and who promote prostitutes called “porn stars.” Church attendance is way down. People have switched from worshipping God to going to the mall.
Meanwhile, on ABC, they put on NYPD Blue, featuring cussing and swearing and partial nudity.
Porn all over the internet.
So Catholics fell for the “try it, you’ll like it” idea. Hey. Being faithful to God is difficult. Forget about God, they said. They were atheists after all. Party. Buy stuff! Pleasure, pleasure, pleasure. Husband or wife a pain? Divorce 'em. Life a pain? Get high. Got pregnant by mistake? Get an abortion. What’s the big deal? It’s all ‘good.’ Listen to us.
The Church didn’t change, but Catholics made a choice. Now some of us are so far away from the true and practical advice of the Church, we don’t know what to do. Go back to Church. Talk to the priest. Seek God in your prayers and daily. Turn away from the way the world lives.
I encourage you.
God bless,
Ed
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
ed i think you need to go get your brain tested, because i think you are a freaking genius. its so simple, but so sad because its all true.
D
dbting_tom
Guest
So given the scenario of a man who feels socially pressured into marrying a woman when he is homosexual. After X years of marriage he can no longer live the lie anymore and starts practicing openly. He is willing to continue fullfilling his duties as husband but will no longer deny his homosexual urges.
And the wife should not be able to divorce him?
And the wife should not be able to divorce him?
F
flameburns623
Guest
You don’t really want my opinions on this one.
C
cait
Guest
Divorce should be discouraged by government in the interests of family stability. However, there is difference between allowing divorce and granting the special privileges of marriage to same sex couples. From a governmental perspective, marriage between heterosexuals provides a benefit to society by providing new members for society and by providing a setting where a child benefits from being nurtured by each gender. Even atheists cannot deny that nature created two genders for a reason and created human beings to need many years of intense nurturing before they are independent. Heterosexual marriage givres a child the daily experience of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. This is why government has an interest in encouraging the type of relationship which, by its nature, can both produce offspring and can provide the ideal environment for the offspring. There are plenty of failures by heterosexual parents and certainly some good homosexual parents but as “classes,” the heterosexual marriage deserves encouragement and therefore the privileges associated with government recognition of the relationship.
- Status