marriage

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

I'm thinking that there are a lot of denominations these days that are more liberal than Jesus, whereas the Catholic Church (any others?) is actually stricter.

Even disregarding the man/woman issue, is there any church that says divorce is justified but only on grounds of infidelity?

Read St. Thomas, as posted above. Y'know, the one the Church calls "The Angelic Doctor" and "The Universal Doctor"...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Polyamory is nothing new. Its gained more popularity in the last few years however with the New Age crowd and in trendy neo-pagan circles and such and can even be found among some main stream folk nowadays (not just crazy mormon pedophiles). I think the concept is fine its just you better be sure all parties involved understand what they are getting into and can deal with it well.

What about the children?

You're fond of studies, IRex. And so am I - as long as they don't pander to their bias. What do studies say about the best environment for children? People seem to forget about them in their quest for self-fulfillment ...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

I don't suppose IR that the obvious fact that it isn't a natural state anywhere in the world would change your last sentence? I know facts and data aren't your strong point, but this over the top even for you!

If you think the "facts and data" of human sexual interaction indicates that homosapiens are strictly monogamous animals then you must be using one of your 'agenda above facts' sources you are famous for in the gay thread. The fact of the matter is, humans in their natural state tend to bond to one mate (a primary mate) but that they will happily gain secondary mates or at least single copulation events when given the opportunity. This is proven out IN the data century after century... We are NOT a perfectly monogamous species.

In fact I recall seeing a rating scale for various species where perfectly monogamous species were given a 1.0 (the rating being based on number of current mates/copulation potentials an individual takes at any one time). I think Puffins or some bird had the lowest (most monogamous) score with something like 1.003 or something. Successful male elephant seals had like a 23.4 or something really high because of their harem behavior. Humans had like 1.4 with like males being like 1.6 or something. So we are a far cry from “perfect monogamy�. And the fact that most marriages in our society are between two people is somewhat irrelevant to the concept I was talking about. I simply said the idea of primary mate dominant Polyamory breeding situation fits the species nature better then perfect monogamy.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What about the children?

You're fond of studies, IRex. And so am I - as long as they don't pander to their bias. What do studies say about the best environment for children? People seem to forget about them in their quest for self-fulfillment ...

What about the children? Were we talking about them? Children will adapt to whatever rearing situation they grow up in. The concept of the pure modern nuclear family is a fairly unnatural one in fact if you look over the history of our species despite the fact we are constantly told its “traditional�. We are much more likely to favor an extended family situation then an isolated immediate family situation as is promoted now in our culture. If anything THAT kind of upbringing has lead to several generations of kids with more limited social skills and an alarming spike in narcissism and apathy.

As to whether the polyamorous (?) situation is bad for children well I think it’s a complicated question. I think it’s a harder relationship to pull off then the single family situation, especially in a culture that so shuns and stigmatizes any kind of family situation other then the nuclear one. But if you go to other societies where these kinds of things are more accepted you might find the kids work out just fine and in fact the extended family aspect of that situation actually lends itself to better child rearing in many ways then more limited situations.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What about the children? Were we talking about them? Children will adapt to whatever rearing situation they grow up in.

A child might adapt to being abused by a parent. They might expect abuse and learn to deal with it, perhaps by taking out the anger it causes on their own children. Everyone can be influenced by their rearing and can adapt in behavior to their rearing. However, it doesn't follow that all ways of rearing are equally good for the child.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The concept of the pure modern nuclear family is a fairly unnatural one in fact if you look over the history of our species despite the fact we are constantly told its “traditional�.

*Frowns.* No it isn't. Monogomous marriage has been around in many major civilizations throughout history.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We are much more likely to favor an extended family situation then an isolated immediate family situation as is promoted now in our culture. If anything THAT kind of upbringing has lead to several generations of kids with more limited social skills and an alarming spike in narcissism and apathy.

That's not true. Homeschooled families tend to have very strong bonds develop between their members. I've seen a lot of apathy and some narcissism, but it has come from public school families. Homeschooled families, which tend to have stronger value-based upbringing and monogomous parents rear children with greater stability and sense of purpose. That's what I've seen, anyhow. They may have somewhat more limited social skills, but these blossom as well given a little practice. Narcissism and apathy are much worse than experiencing some social limitations, and I've seen these primarily in people who come from public school with looser family bonds and values, not from homeschooled children.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But if you go to other societies where these kinds of things are more accepted you might find the kids work out just fine and in fact the extended family aspect of that situation actually lends itself to better child rearing in many ways then more limited situations.

All guesswork. But I expect this is a tricky issue to get real data on. Much like homosexuality. It's too politically sensitive.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

I think they should call it poligomy and make it legal!

It would work!

You're giving me the shivers. I knew that polygamy would become an issue after homosexuality started being called marriage. I think in many countries, marriage will end up losing all meaning because of such redefinition, legal problems because of the different types of "marriages" will multiply, and the state will cease to recognize marriage at all.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Read St. Thomas, as posted above. Y'know, the one the Church calls "The Angelic Doctor" and "The Universal Doctor"...

How far above is 'above' in a 17-page thread?

Doesn't the Catholic Church forbid divorce under any circumstance, including infidelity? You can't get annulment of a marriage on those grounds, can you?

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

*Frowns.* No it isn't. Monogomous marriage has been around in many major civilizations throughout history.

Actually even in polygamous societies most marriages are monogamous, simply on economic grounds. Polygyny is generally found among high-status males who can afford to add (typically) younger wives as they grow older- in traditional monogamous societies this place was taken by (often socially-acknowledged ) mistresses; in our modern age we get the phenomena of serial monogamy and trophy wives.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

How far above is 'above' in a 17-page thread?

No further back than the very first post in response to your question. Here it is again:

Get yer Dumb Ox here!

Doesn't the Catholic Church forbid divorce under any circumstance, including infidelity? You can't get annulment of a marriage on those grounds, can you?

Tsk, tsk, Mouser...divorce and annulment aren't the same thing.

But here's more text here. "Divorce" is said in many ways. Divorce, as in separation of husband from wife even permanently and cessation of their life together, is allowed; however, this does not dissolve the sacramental bond between them.

The Catholic Church, as a rule, may be considered to take the words of Christ very, very, very seriously.

Without further ado:

Originally Posted by New Advent

D. Limited Divorce, or Separation from Bed and Board (Divortium Imperfectum) is allowed for various causes, especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresy on the part of husband or wife.

A separation of married parties leaving the marriage bond intact is mentioned by St. Paul, I Cor., vii, 11: "If she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." From the very nature of the case it follows that occasions may arise in which further cohabitation is unadvisable or even unseemly and morally impossible. If such circumstances do not bring about a dissolution of the marriage bond, at least a cessation of married life must be permitted. Hence it is that the Council of Trent, immediately after its definition of the indissolubility of the marrriage bond, even in case of adultery, added another canon (Sess. XXIV, can. viii): "If anyone shall say that the Church errs when she, for many causes, decrees a separation of husband and wife in respect to bed and dwelling-place for a definite or an indefinite period; let him be anathema." The cessation of married life in common may have different degrees. There can be the mere cessation of married life (separatio quoad torum), or a complete separation as regards dwelling-place (separatio quoad cohabitationem). Each of these may be permanent or temporary. Temporary abstinence from married life, or separatio a toro, may take place by mutual private consent from higher religious motives, not, however, if such continence be the occasion of moral danger to either of the parties. Should such danger threaten either, it would become their duty to resume married life. The Apostle speaks of this in I Cor., vii, 5: "Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourself to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency."

<snip>

2. Adultery of One of the Parties

Cause for the cessation of complete community of life, which in itself is perpetual, is given to the innocent party by adultery of the spouse. In order, however, that this right may exist, the adultery must be, first, proven; second, not attributable to the other spouse either entirely or as accomplice; third, not already condoned; fourth, not, as it were, compensated by the adultery of the other party (cf. IV Decretal., xiii, 6, and xix, 4, 5; Wernz, "Jus decret.", IV, n. 707 sqq.; St. Alphonsus, VI, n. 960). If the innocent party is certain of the sin of the other, he or she has a right immediately to refuse the continuation of married life. If the crime is manifest, then the innocent party is justified in leaving at once the guilty one, or in dismissing him or her from the house. If, however, the crime is not known, or not proved with certainty, then complete separation can follow only after a judicial investigation and a judicial decision, which must be made by ecclesiastical authority (IV Decretal., xix, 4, 5;I, 9; Wernz, "Jus decretal.", IV, n. 711). All sexual intercourse outside of married life is regarded equivalent to adultery in justifying complete separation, even the unnatural sins of sodomy and bestiality. As proof of the crime may be alleged what are called suspiciones vehementes. In the first centuries of the Church, there was often a commandment, and the duty was imposed on the innocent party, to separate from the party guilty of adultery. There never, however, was any such general legislation. The duty, however, of separation was founded partly on the canonical penance imposed for adultery that was publicly known (and this penance was incompatible with marital life), and partly on the duty of avoiding scandal, as continued living with a husband or wife addicted to adultery might seem to be a scandalous approval of this criminal life. For this latter reason, even nowadays, circumstances may arise making the dismissal of the guilty party a duty (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, n. 963 sqq.). Commonly, however, at least for a single violation, there is no duty of separation; still less is there any duty of permanent separation; in fact, charity may in certain cases demand that after a temporary separation the contrite party might be invited or admitted to a renewal of the married life. There is, however, never any obligation of justice to receive again the guilty party. The most that some theologians recognize is any obligation of justice when the party originally innocent has meanwhile become guilty of the same crime. The innocent party always retains the right in justice to recall or to demand the return of the guilty party. If the innocent husband or wife wishes to give up this right forever, then he or she can enter a religious order, or he may receive Holy orders, without the necessity of consent on the part of the guilty wife or husband who has been dismissed, or without any further obligation being imposed upon this party (III Decretal., xxxii, 15, 16). The guilty party can, however, proceed to the religious life or to the reception of Holy orders only with the consent of the innocent. This consent must either be granted expressly or be deduced with certainty from the constant refusal to be reconciled. It is the business of ecclesiastical authority to decice in any case, whether such certainty exists or not. A further obligation, such as the vow of perpetual chastity, is not imposed upon the innocent party, but the freedom to remarry is allowed after the death of the other spouse (cf. III Decretal., xxxii, 19; Wernz, op. cit., n. 710), not. 126; St. Alphonsus, VI, n. 969).

EDIT: Due to HTML incompetence.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

A child might adapt to being abused by a parent. They might expect abuse and learn to deal with it, perhaps by taking out the anger it causes on their own children. Everyone can be influenced by their rearing and can adapt in behavior to their rearing. However, it doesn't follow that all ways of rearing are equally good for the child.

Nor did I say that or even imply that. We were speaking about polyamory. Are you suggesting that raising a child under such a family structure is tantamount to child abuse?

*Frowns.* No it isn't. Monogomous marriage has been around in many major civilizations throughout history.

I wasnt talking about "monogamous marriage". I was talking about nuclear families there. And yes they certainly are a relatively modern invention. We have only relatively recently been able to sucessfully sustain a family with just a few individuals involved. In the past a wider family group was more beneficial to the success of the family as a whole. Especially in agrarian cultures and hunter/gatherer cultures where support by other individuals was essential to even survive at all.

That's not true. Homeschooled families tend to have very strong bonds develop between their members. I've seen a lot of apathy and some narcissism, but it has come from public school families. Homeschooled families, which tend to have stronger value-based upbringing and monogomous parents rear children with greater stability and sense of purpose. That's what I've seen, anyhow. They may have somewhat more limited social skills, but these blossom as well given a little practice. Narcissism and apathy are much worse than experiencing some social limitations, and I've seen these primarily in people who come from public school with looser family bonds and values, not from homeschooled children.

...again are we talking about the evils of public schools or the effects of a culture dominated by nuclear family child rearing?

All guesswork. But I expect this is a tricky issue to get real data on. Much like homosexuality. It's too politically sensitive.

Dont you know? It takes a village to raise a child...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I wasnt talking about "monogamous marriage". I was talking about nuclear families there. And yes they certainly are a relatively modern invention. We have only relatively recently been able to sucessfully sustain a family with just a few individuals involved. In the past a wider family group was more beneficial to the success of the family as a whole. Especially in agrarian cultures and hunter/gatherer cultures where support by other individuals was essential to even survive at all.

One of many modern inventions I am rather iffy of. I think it really is better to have the more extended family, where they really act like one, not just coming together once a year at a family reunion, and trying desperately to remember the name and lineage of the person they're talking to. That's terrible.

[Insidious Rex]

It is in fact "unnatural" if I may dare say... Despite what some would lead you to believe about "tradition". And it has taken a toll on us as a society.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You're giving me the shivers. I knew that polygamy would become an issue after homosexuality started being called marriage. I think in many countries, marriage will end up losing all meaning because of such redefinition, legal problems because of the different types of "marriages" will multiply, and the state will cease to recognize marriage at all.

I certainly hope that will happen eventually. The state had no business putting it's nose in marriage in the first place.

[inked]

The state had every reason to put its nose into societal stability in the assurance of the support of the offspring of a union that was procreative - else the society at large was responsible for all the consequences of heterosexual relations with natural results.

That explains why it did not need the concept of homosexual "marriage" as it was a nonentity. It still is.

Now, the state needed to assure the orderly devolution of property as well from generation to generation and amongst multiple potential inheritors. This was accomplished via legal descent - another proper determination of the state from legal standpoint. On this basis, homosexuals should have equal rights in regard to property, visitation, etc., because the construct of the corporation and company have taken this ought of strictly heritable determinations as priorly. There is legal precedent for partners in a company to have proper shares in a common venture.

But that ain't marriage. Never will be.

"There, I said it again."TM

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

The state had every reason to put its nose into societal stability in the assurance of the support of the offspring of a union that was procreative - else the society at large was responsible for all the consequences of heterosexual relations with natural results.

Marriage existed for ages before it was incorporated into the state in the form of "legal recognition". That is a rather recent development for the populace at large.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I certainly hope that will happen eventually. The state had no business putting it's nose in marriage in the first place.

(substituting "marriage" with the dictionary.com deff

"The state had no business putting its nose in [t]he legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife in the first place."

Right.

Emphasis added. All right reserved.

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Marriage existed for ages before it was incorporated into the state in the form of "legal recognition". That is a rather recent development for the populace at large.

And for all that time it was between a man and a woman. So on the force of your argument, there is no need to change it to include homosexual couples of either sex.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

And for all that time it was between a man and a woman. So on the force of your argument, there is no need to change it to include homosexual couples of either sex.

For the short period of time it has been in the legal realm, marriage has had a strict definition. But, in terms of non-legal practice, all forms of marriage have and continue to exist throughout our world. In fact, it's not even illegal to have a non-legal polygamist marriage much of the US.

That's why it would be much better just to remove it altogether from the realm of government. It's like requiring a license to be baptised.

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You're giving me the shivers. I knew that polygamy would become an issue after homosexuality started being called marriage. I think in many countries, marriage will end up losing all meaning because of such redefinition, legal problems because of the different types of "marriages" will multiply, and the state will cease to recognize marriage at all.

But marriage has become simply a state union. Why do I want to get married? For all the benifits that come with a unified household.

This is a legal issue because the state has so much to do with controling people's lives. If we cannot change laws then we are dooming ourselves. (Sorry, I don't know WHERE that thought went.)

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What about the children?
You're fond of studies, IRex. And so am I - as long as they don't pander to their bias. What do studies say about the best environment for children? People seem to forget about them in their quest for self-fulfillment ...

I grew up living in two different households with 3-4 parents. It seemed perfectly natural to me, but what I miss was living in the same town.

Having fewer parents does a lot more damage than having more parents.

[inked]

Exactly what I've been saying would be the problem ...

http://magicstatistics.com/2006/05/2...polygamy-laws/

And, Nurv, it's Canada! Maybe your earnings tax will help support these 16 (and many more!)

and logically (as some would say)...http://merecomments.typepad.com/mere..._income_n.html