Last Name Changes on Marriage

[nickybr38]

The question is whether calling someone by something other than their name against their wish is immoral. The answer is yes, because it is rude.

Since when is being rude immoral?

Really? This is what morality has been reduced to? Social norms for politeness???

 

[severus68]

Yes indeed in the sense that if someone uses the name “Fatso” everybody including Fatso himself knows exactly who is being referred to. It’s illogical to deny that your name is by definition what other people call you. You don’t go around saying “severus68 posts on CAF”, you say “I post on CAF”.

It is quite one thing to say everyone knows who is being referred to and quite another thing to say “Fatso” is now that boy’s name. I know I am severus68, a name I chose. “Fatso” is not the name that boy chose. We would both refer to ourselves in the first person.

 

[faithfully]

Yes indeed in the sense that if someone uses the name “Fatso” everybody including Fatso himself knows exactly who is being referred to. It’s illogical to deny that your name is by definition what other people call you. You don’t go around saying “severus68 posts on CAF”, you say “I post on CAF”.

It’s clear you just want to be right. Logic and social graces have nothing to do with your argument.

The name of the young child, for example, being bullied by his classmates would NOT be “Fatso”. Even if everyone knows who they are talking about.

Just like the name of the bullying children would not be “bully”. Although, it quite applies doesn’t it?

Now, if the child whom all call Fatso, says “hey, just call me ‘Fatso’”, Then yes, it’s ok to use that as a NICKname. Everyone has been given permission from the body that will respond to the call. But you can bet, unless he makes a legal name change, when he grows up, he won’t be signing his mortgage as Fatso Petergee.

If, however, that child does not want to be called “Fatso”, then it is no one’s right to decide otherwise. Will they still likely do it? Yes, because they are bullies. They feel it’s their right to do as they wish and treat people however they like. But they would be wrong. And you know this.

I suppose you are more than welcome to call people as you wish. Just as they are more than welcome to acknowledge your existance or not when you try to make an example of them and enforce your opinions of their life. I know I answer to my name. I also do not answer to any version people like to apply to me, especially when they’ve been asked not to, or corrected. We all have choices to make.

To further my explanation. My legal name is First Name, Maiden Name-Married Name.

I don’t have a problem going by either last name. Except in the Business world, where my internationally functioning business is tied to my maiden name. Ahhhh-haaa. DH likes the money I bring in while sitting at home. So he has no issue with people that work with me, thinking of me or addressing me as: First Name Maiden Name.

Also, our children go by married name. I don’t need any nut jobs tracking them down by knowing a few too many pieces of my information. I’m sure the safety of my children is a stupid reason in your book to do what I have done with my name. Most people at their school call me Mrs. Married Name. I don’t have a problem with this. My Maiden Name - Married Name is a mouthfull. Generally speaking I’m relaxed enough I offer adults the option to Oh MY! Wait for it! Please, call me by my FIRST Name.

My problem with YOUR statements is that you make it quite clear, that a woman could be introduced as Mrs. Maiden name - Married name, and because she has “stupidly” done such a thing with her name, seemingly with her own husband’s approval, you feel it’s only right to correct her “stupid, non committed idea” and call her Mrs. Married Name. You do it to teach a lesson so to speak. To show just how smart you are, and how stupid they are. And in your simplified words to correct the error of their ways. You become the bully. You make it clear this is your entent. As everyone in your neck of the woods rolls their eyes at the women that do this. As if it weren’t done with discussion and agreement with their spouse. Who, if Catholic, committed themselves to a marriage, valid unless proved otherwise, under the guidance of an approving priest. Please show your credentials at this point. Your OPINION is just that.

I wonder, have you ever given thought that perhaps the hyphenated name belongs entirely to her husband, and you just butchered it? That would easily happen where I live.

 

[severus68]

Several, if you mean social classes. What possible relevenca does that have to the subject?

You did say that a woman not wanting to take her husband’s name would indicate that she is not serious about marriage etc and in your post I was responding to, you accepted that most such women would be innocent in intent. If you were not trying to back pedal, then it was just confusing.

 

[Baelor]

Since when is being rude immoral?

Really? This is what morality has been reduced to? Social norms for politeness???

Should everything except the most egregious infractions be considered irrelevant?

We are called to be kind, charitable, and polite to others.

 

[nickybr38]

Should everything except the most egregious infractions be considered irrelevant?

We are called to be kind, charitable, and polite to others.

Certainly but is the opposite of such behavior immediately immoral??? I should think morality is far more indepth then social norms for politeness.

 

[Baelor]

Certainly but is the opposite of such behavior immediately immoral??? I should think morality is far more indepth then social norms for politeness.

Being knowingly rude to others is sinful because it displays a lack of respect and consideration for others and is unkind.

I am not saying that all behavior against social norms for politeness is sinful, or that morality is “reduced to this,” but rather that being knowingly disrespectful is sinful. Using the wrong fork (even knowingly) is probably not sinful. Calling someone “fatso” or cutting in line, etc. is.

 

[nickybr38]

Being knowingly rude to others is sinful because it displays a lack of respect and consideration for others and is unkind.

I am not saying that all behavior against social norms for politeness is sinful, or that morality is “reduced to this,” but rather that being knowingly disrespectful is sinful. Using the wrong fork (even knowingly) is probably not sinful. Calling someone “fatso” or cutting in line, etc. is.

Ok. That’s much different then; ‘it’s sinful because it’s rude’.

Rudeness in and or itself isn’t sinful. I think we can agree on that. Glad we hashed this out. Haha.

 

[Baelor]

Ok. That’s much different then; ‘it’s sinful because it’s rude’.

Rudeness in and or itself isn’t sinful. I think we can agree on that. Glad we hashed this out. Haha.

LOL I am glad we are on the same page.

 

[severus68]

Certainly but is the opposite of such behavior immediately immoral??? I should think morality is far more indepth then social norms for politeness.

Well, calling people names to make fun, to humiliate, is not morally right.

 

[Petergee]

You did say that a woman not wanting to take her husband’s name would indicate that she is not serious about marriage etc and in your post I was responding to, you accepted that most such women would be innocent in intent. If you were not trying to back pedal, then it was just confusing.

Absolute nonsense as well as a quite uncharitable falsehood.
I said NEITHER of the statements you falsely attributed to me.

What I did say (go ahead, check my posts) is :

a woman INSISTING on not taking her husband’s name may GIVE THE IMPRESSION to him andf to the world that she is not serious about marriage etc

and in charity I expressed the original opionion (not “” accepted" what you had already said) that most such women would be innocent in intent.

 

[Petergee]

Petergee,

You asked for evidence. The Catechism speaks clearly on the matter.

God tells us what to call him; we do not choose what to call him. So too do we tell others what to call us.

Newsflash: You are not God. God can do a whole lotta stuff that we can’t.

And you’ve opened a can of worms trying to bring God and the Bible into it. The Bible tells us God chose His own name, and that God chose the first man’s name. And that the man chose the names of all the animals. And that** the man chose the name of the woman**, Eve. So if the Bible teaches us anything on the matter, it is that a woman gets her name from a man!

You may read the Catechism sections …
You will note that nowhere does the Church even suggest that the wife taking the husband’s name is a moral requirement.

I never claimed anything of the sort. I merely refuted the claim that NOT calling a wife by her husband’s name is a moral requirement.

In the CCC’s discussion of baptism, you will see the following:

While discussing the baptismal name in particular, the teaching nevertheless intuitively applies to our names in general.

You may intuit it, but the context justifies no such claim. The baptismal name is a sign that in being baptised we put on a new identity. It is customary for even adults being baptised to take a new, baptismal name.

By denying a woman her name, you are denying her dignity

I am doing neither and your simply asserting it does not make it so.

So, let me ask a different question: where does the Church require a woman taking her husband’s name? What encyclical, CCC section, Canon Law, or other source mandates this? Perhaps you could enlighten us.

Absolutely nowhere and I made no such suggestion. Would you please stop creating straw-men?
Neither does any Church doctrine require the opposite as was claimed.

We are bodies and souls according to Catholic teaching. We are unique, but not in a predestined manner. Thus, if one defines self as the entirety of one’s existence, we change all the time.

And this is relevant because…?

Can you establish how this follows? Like, you know only that a woman does not take her husband’s name. Using only that information, can you demonstrate that she does not care about her marriage?

No, that’s why I made no such claim.

The question is whether calling someone by something other than their name against their wish is immoral. The answer is yes, because it is rude.

It may be, if it was something that was not her name. In the case I referred to, it is. It would be rude of her to try to force people not to use it.

Anyway, if husbands are so worried about this, there is an easy solution: take the wife’s name. Problem solved.

and that would solve rather than compound the problem, how? And I’m not “worried” about it, I pity those who have been conned inbto thinking that this is some sort of feminist achievement. In fact it’s a total distraction from true feminism.

 

[Petergee]

It’s clear you just want to be right.

Yes. I would have hoped that was the aim of all of us.

Logic and social graces have nothing to do with your argument.

The name of the young child, for example, being bullied by his classmates would NOT be “Fatso”. Even if everyone knows who they are talking about.

Just like the name of the bullying children would not be “bully”. Although, it quite applies doesn’t it?

Obviously I wasn’t claiming it is his legal name. But it is his name .

I suppose you are more than welcome to call people as you wish. Just as they are more than welcome to acknowledge your existance or not when you try to make an example of them and enforce your opinions of their life. …My problem with YOUR statements is that you make it quite clear, that a woman could be introduced as Mrs. Maiden name - Married name, and because she has “stupidly” done such a thing with her name, seemingly with her own husband’s approval, you feel it’s only right to correct her “stupid, non committed idea” and call her Mrs. Married Name. You do it to teach a lesson so to speak. To show just how smart you are, and how stupid they are. And in your simplified words to correct the error of their ways. You become the bully. You make it clear this is your entent.

Wow, you love ascibing evil motives to people don’t you? I have no desire to bully anyone or teach anyone a lesson or make an example of him or enforce my opoinions onto him. I do however reserve the right to express my own opinions, which may differ from yours. I’m sorry that that is just too much for you to cope with.

: My legal name is First Name, Maiden Name-Married Name.
… our children go by married name. I don’t need any nut jobs tracking them down by knowing a few too many pieces of my information. I’m sure the safety of my children is a stupid reason in your book to do what I have done with my name.

Wow, paranoid much?

As everyone in your neck of the woods rolls their eyes at the women that do this. As if it weren’t done with discussion and agreement with their spouse. Who, if Catholic, committed themselves to a marriage, valid unless proved otherwise, under the guidance of an approving priest. Please show your credentials at this point. Your OPINION is just that.

I never claimed it was anything else. Why do I need “credentials” to be allowed to express an opinion which differes from yours? Where did I claim that wives who reject their husband’s name are not validly married? Nowehere.
Where did I claim that they must be doing it behind their husband’s back without his knowledge or approval? Nowhere. In fact I’m sure it’s often his idea. Now that gets in the way of your theory that anyone who prefers to uphold the custom is waging some private sexist war on women.

I wonder, have you ever given thought that perhaps the hyphenated name belongs entirely to her husband, and you just butchered it? That would easily happen where I live.

It would be impossible in the case I mentioned, where I knew the woman’s name.

 

[miss5678]

Some good posts here. Interesting topic particularly for today’s society where you can pick and choose everything in life and it’s all about me and what’s in it for me.

Personally, I would give up my name for my husband’s name. I like the idea of being united as a family and since marriage is a sacrament, that is an outward sign of an inward reality, changing the name is another sign of the sacramental life that marriage is about.

Also, someone also has mentioned before, that it also a sign of selflessness and self sacrifice that can bring a couple together and a small change like changing a name is a an outward sign of the inward reality of sacramental life of marriage.

 

[boymama]

I didn’t change my last name. We both have PhDs, and I wanted to keep my last name so that my research, education history, etc all matched.

I have never corrected anyone who calls me Dr. Husband’s Last Name, but we legally don’t share a last name.

Our kids have his last name.

 

[Baelor]

I never claimed anything of the sort. I merely refuted the claim that NOT calling a wife by her husband’s name is a moral requirement.

You have done no such thing – the argument that calling someone by something other than their desired name is rude and unkind has, in fact, not been refuted at all, and thus still stands.

[quot]You may intuit it, but the context justifies no such claim. The baptismal name is a sign that in being baptised we put on a new identity. It is customary for even adults being baptised to take a new, baptismal name.

And its significance can be reasonably extended to nomenclature generally, which is what I stated.

I am doing neither and your simply asserting it does not make it so.

We have the right to choose our own name. This is legally recognized in the United States. The Church also recognizes our personal identification and our ability to name ourselves in a particular context, i.e. baptism. Such a position may reasonably be extended to names at a general level.

It is not clear to me what you deny:

1. The ability of the individual to determine his name, or
2. That calling someone by something other than his desired name is rude

Please clarify so I may understand.

Neither does any Church doctrine require the opposite as was claimed.

Where?

And this is relevant because…?

No, that’s why I made no such claim.

It may be, if it was something that was not her name. In the case I referred to, it is. It would be rude of her to try to force people not to use it.

The problem is that it is not, in fact, her name. Where are you getting this idea?

 

[Petergee]

You have done no such thing – the argument that calling someone by something other than their desired name is rude and unkind has, in fact, not been refuted at all, and thus still stands.

[quot]You may intuit it, but the context justifies no such claim. The baptismal name is a sign that in being baptised we put on a new identity. It is customary for even adults being baptised to take a new, baptismal name.

And its significance can be reasonably extended to nomenclature generally, which is what I stated.

We have the right to choose our own name. This is legally recognized in the United States. The Church also recognizes our personal identification and our ability to name ourselves in a particular context, i.e. baptism. Such a position may reasonably be extended to names at a general level.

It is not clear to me what you deny:

1. The ability of the individual to determine his name, or
2. That calling someone by something other than his desired name is rude

Please clarify so I may understand.

Where?

And this is relevant because…?

No, that’s why I made no such claim.

The problem is that it is not, in fact, her name. Where are you getting this idea?
I’m not going to keep going round in circles and repeating myself. My work here is done, unless anyone can come up with anything new and relevant on the subject (which seems doubtful)

 

[Petergee]

I don’t intend to keep going round in cuircles and repeat myself any further. My work here is done, unless (which I doubt) anyone can post anything new and relevant on thye topic.

 

[faithfully]

Wow, paranoid much?

Ever had a child within your family kidnapped and never seen again? It sucks! Get back to me should you ever have such a horrifying experience. I’ll be able to offer prayers from a base of experience. I’ll know to the core of my being what you are enduring.

More could be said, but much truly should go without saying.

 

[Petergee]

Ever had a child within your family kidnapped and never seen again? It sucks! Get back to me should you ever have such a horrifying experience. I’ll be able to offer prayers from a base of experience. I’ll know to the core of my being what you are enduring.

No, but we’ve had an experience in our family which was and is even worse.

I feel compassion for the tragic incident in your family. My point was merely that we shouldn’t act as if such things are common and expected to happen to anybody at any time. If we do, the bad people have defeated our spirit.