No fault divorce, the biggest idiocy of all times ?

[DanP]

Bashing is when you're not offering an arguable case, you're just venting personal, emotional and highly negative feelings about something. It adds nothing to the discussion and is not constructive to the discusion in any way.

You are jut going emotional yourself here and vent your feelings.

 

[DanP]

Yeah, I'll bet you don't want anyone else holding that can of worms but you. You wanted to get your bashing out there under the guise of "political view" without being called on it being just bashing.

Sorry mate. You are beating a dead horse. Learn to accept others ppl political views of the church.

I would also ask you to refrain from venting your biased views on my behavior, and stop your wild suppositions that I want to get my bashing under a political disguise. Keep it out of personal level. Dont fantasize about what I believe and what I want.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Perhaps in your eyes, or in the eyes of a member of your particular cult. You can't really expect someone who doesn't believe in church/religion to recognize a religious aspect.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. (This is probably not your fault -- I'm bad at interpreting people's intentions.)

I read your post as saying: "Perhaps in [CRGreathouse's] eyes," my statement is true -- but that a reasonable person would think otherwise. That is, my statement would not be accepted by a reasonable person.

But my statement was that the statement with which you take issue is mheslep's statement, "Not if one gets married in a church. Then it is both civil and religious.". This seems a relatively non-controversial point.

You continue by saying, "You can't really expect someone who doesn't believe in church/religion to recognize a religious aspect.". But I don't see how this is relevant to anything I wrote. (Since you quoted only me, I assume that is was intended to refer to my words.)

So please, for my benefit, clarify this post.

 

[CRGreathouse]

the church

Which?

 

[DanP]

I'm sorry, I don't follow. (This is probably not your fault -- I'm bad at interpreting people's intentions.)


So please, for my benefit, clarify this post.

Ok, let me try to clarify:

One gets married in church. Then he claims that his marriage is religious and civil. Nothing wrong with this, except for the fact that the "religious" part is subjective. It holds true for him,
and for members of his cult. Other cults may deny that his religious marriage holds any water, because it wasnt done in accordance with their religious customs. Atheists will surely deny any religious aspect whatsoever. So the meaning of religious marriage is highly subjective and relative. Not so with civil marriage, recognize by the state. No cult or atheist will be able to dispute the legal standing of the marriage

 

[CRGreathouse]

One gets married in church. Then he claims that his marriage is religious and civil. Nothing wrong with this, except for the fact that the "religious" part is subjective. It holds true for him,
and for members of his cult.

Right. So (if I understand correctly) you're saying that I should say, not that is is civil and religious, but that it is civil and religious[R] for some religion R. I accept that -- I'm not saying that a Shinto marriage is the same as an Eastern Orthodox marriage.

Atheists will surely deny any religious aspect whatsoever.

I don't think we have a disagreement here. If a person denies R, then it's clear that a civil and religious[R] marriage would mean no more (and, presumably, no less) than a civil marriage. Atheists deny R for all religions R, so they would feel this regardless of the particular religion.

Not so with civil marriage, recognize by the state. No cult or atheist will be able to dispute the legal standing of the marriage

This is where you seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that a Shinto follower would deny that a civil marriage has legal standing, just that it need not be a valid Shinto marriage. For some reason, perhaps because the word "marriage" is the same in both cases, you seem to conflate the two.

 

[DanP]

This is where you seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that a Shinto follower would deny that a civil marriage has legal standing, just that it need not be a valid Shinto marriage. For some reason, perhaps because the word "marriage" is the same in both cases, you seem to conflate the two.

I see your point now. Thanks for explaining. You are right.

 

[mheslep]

Actually, the marriage is not legal until the religious officiator files the legal paperwork with the proper legal jurisdiction, usually the county clerk's office and is signed by the local judge/justice of the peace, etc... The priest/pastor is only authorized to prepare and file the legal paperwork on behalf of the couple. A religious marriage is just a ceremony, it is not itself legally recognized.

Yes, though I'd juxatapose your choice of emphasis and say the legal aspect - marriage certificate and so on - is 'just' paperwork, and that the marriage ceremony is all important. To trivialize or otherwise take the marriage ceremony lightly is a large mistake in my view, if one wants to start a marriage on the right track.

 

[DanP]

Yes, though I'd juxatapose your choice of emphasis and say the legal aspect - marriage certificate and so on - is 'just' paperwork, and that the marriage ceremony is all important. To trivialize or otherwise take the marriage ceremony lightly is a large mistake in my view, if one wants to start a marriage on the right track.

Why ? It's just a "ceremony". It doesn't enable a couple to get along, or otherwise stay on the right track. I am willing to bet that a significant percent of the failed marriages where ones where this religious ceremony was present. Surely it was present in the case of some of my friends, and it didn't saved their marriages.

 

[turbo]

Why ? It's just a "ceremony". It doesn't enable a couple to get along, or otherwise stay on the right track. I am willing to bet that a significant percent of the failed marriages where ones where this religious ceremony was present. Surely it was present in the case of some of my friends, and it didn't saved their marriages.

So true. Most of my schoolmates were married in religious ceremonies, and many of them are on their 2nd or 3rd marriages. My wife and I were married in a civil "ceremony" involving a JP (she was a friend of both of us), my best friend, and my wife's best friend as witnesses. We were married in our apartment, dressed casually, and celebrated with a bottle of inexpensive champagne. No religion involved, yet we're still going strong 35+ years later. Religious trappings may make some people happy, but it doesn't seem to do anything to help with the mutual respect, fidelity, and commitment that a real marriage requires.

 

[mheslep]

Why ? It's just a "ceremony". It doesn't enable a couple to get along, or otherwise stay on the right track. I am willing to bet that a significant percent of the failed marriages where ones where this religious ceremony was present. Surely it was present in the case of some of my friends, and it didn't saved their marriages.

Are you talking to yourself or me? Go back and look at my post #148. You won't find any mention of religion.

As to what I actually said on emphasis, a marriage certificate issued by the state is just a piece of paper, good for taxes and inheritance issues, not much else. As to the ceremony, I contend it is important to take it seriously. No that doesn't require black tie, expensive dresses, a church, and massive reception halls. It does require a sober mindset, which I contend one doesn't have if you get drunk and head off to Vegas. I won't spin about here on what makes a good marriage, but my own experience is that, whatever those things are, they are reflected in the mindset of the bride and groom when the marriage starts.

 

[DanP]

As to what I actually said on emphasis, a marriage certificate issued by the state is just a piece of paper, good for taxes and inheritance issues, not much else. As to the ceremony, I contend it is important to take it seriously. No that doesn't require black tie, expensive dresses, a church, and massive reception halls. It does require a sober mindset, which I contend one doesn't have if you get drunk and head off to Vegas. I won't spin about here on what makes a good marriage, but my own experience is that, whatever those things are, they are reflected in the mindset of the bride and groom when the marriage starts.

Yeah, ok. But what is a ceremony ? Not much else than a piece of paper.

 

[mheslep]

Yeah, ok. But what is a ceremony ? Not much else than a piece of paper.

Any good wedding ceremony is much more. All depends what you bring to it. One big part is bringing friends and family there to agree both to recognize the couple as committed to each other and to support them, ala "speak now or forever hold your piece" or the equivalent. Marrying another person is also to become part of their extended family. It's a mistake to think otherwise, thus elopers attempting to avoid that are lowering their odds of success. See, e.g. Romeo and Juliet.

 

[Evo]

mheslep, you seriously want us to believe that a big expensive party is the key to marital success? Do you know that elaborate, unafordable weddings are often the beginning of marital problems?

 

[mheslep]

mheslep, you seriously want us to believe that a big expensive party is the key to marital success? Do you know that elaborate, unafordable weddings are often the beginning of marital problems?

No that doesn't require black tie, expensive dresses, a church, and massive reception halls.

Edit: apologies for the crankiness, deleted.

 

[CRGreathouse]

mheslep, you seriously want us to believe that a big expensive party is the key to marital success? Do you know that elaborate, unafordable weddings are often the beginning of marital problems?

I don't think mheslep is talking about parties, whether big or small, whether expensive or inexpensive. At least those aren't in the quoted post.

Edit: mheslep beat me to it!

 

[mheslep]

Edit: mheslep beat me to it!

thanks anyway. night all. heading home to wife and three little ones. been working late to buy big expensive wedding for the daughter

 

[turbo]

mheslep, you seriously want us to believe that a big expensive party is the key to marital success? Do you know that elaborate, unafordable weddings are often the beginning of marital problems?

About 10 years back, our closest neighbor (a successful commercial appraiser) and his GF wanted to have a "big church wedding" because that's what she wanted. They dumped probably $30K into that. I leaned on him hard and asked him if he and his GF would like an Alaskan cruise with guided fishing trips up nice salmon rivers. He said "yes, yes, and yes" and then trumped me with their families' demands for a fancy church wedding and huge receptions. Done deal.

 

[Evo]

Good grief nobody reads posts any more. I SAID:

As in no. Like no.

I don't think mheslep is talking about parties, whether big or small, whether expensive or inexpensive. At least those aren't in the quoted post.

Edit: mheslep beat me to it!

But you think a party with family and friends will affect the success of a marriage? Do either of you seriously stand behind your belief that one party is going to affect the success of a marriage?

Ok, I'll even give you no party. A few people show up to just watch the ceremony and get no party.

Do you have any idea how many marriages start off with at least a friend or family member present to witness the "ceremony"? You do realize that even a judge at the courthouse holds a small ceremony for the couple. I'm just in utter disbelief at this point that either of you can suggest that marriages with a "cermony" or have some people attending have a higher success rate.

All right, let's see the proof, prove me wrong. Post the research.

 

[lisab]

But you think a party with family and friends will affect the success of a marriage? Do either of you seriously stand behind your belief that one party is going to affect the success of a marriage?

Ok, I'll even give you no party. A few people show up to just watch the ceremony and get no party.

Do you have any idea how many marriages start off with at least a friend or family member present to witness the "ceremony"? You do realize that even a judge at the courthouse holds a small ceremony for the couple. I'm just in utter disbelief at this point that either of you can suggest that marriages with a "cermony" or have some people attending have a higher success rate.

All right, let's see the proof, prove me wrong. Post the research.

I'm with you on this one, Evo.

The couples I've known who go the big-wedding-with-all-the bells-and-whistles route are typically waaaaay too concerned with the wedding, less so about the marriage.

 

[CRGreathouse]

But you think a party with family and friends will affect the success of a marriage? Do either of you seriously stand behind your belief that one party is going to affect the success of a marriage?

Evo, you appear to be using a strawman argument. I have made no such claim, and mheslep appears to have made no such claim.

Please desist in making such claims about my beliefs.

 

[turbo]

I'm with you on this one, Evo.

The couples I've known who go the big-wedding-with-all-the bells-and-whistles route are typically waaaaay too concerned with the wedding, less so about the marriage.

Yep! Lots of Show, not too much Go. And often it's peer-driven by idiotic motivations like "my friend did this at her wedding, so I have to do better..." sad

 

[Evo]

Evo, you appear to be using a strawman argument. I have made no such claim, and mheslep appears to have made no such claim.

Please desist in making such claims about my beliefs.

You didn't see this before you backed him up?

Yes, though I'd juxatapose your choice of emphasis and say the legal aspect - marriage certificate and so on - is 'just' paperwork, and that the marriage ceremony is all important. To trivialize or otherwise take the marriage ceremony lightly is a large mistake in my view, if one wants to start a marriage on the right track.

And this?

Any good wedding ceremony is much more. All depends what you bring to it. One big part is bringing friends and family there to agree both to recognize the couple as committed to each other and to support them, ala "speak now or forever hold your piece" or the equivalent. Marrying another person is also to become part of their extended family. It's a mistake to think otherwise, thus elopers attempting to avoid that are lowering their odds of success. See, e.g. Romeo and Juliet.

Bolding mine.

 

[CRGreathouse]

You didn't see this before you backed him up?

What gives you the idea that I supported that? I never quoted it, nor referred to it.

It *may* be that mleshep believes "that one party is going to affect the success of a marriage". This is not clear to me; it seems you two are talking about different things. But I have made no such statement, nor supported any such statement. But you directly stated that this was my belief.

 

[Evo]

What gives you the idea that I supported that? I never quoted it, nor referred to it.

It *may* be that mleshep believes "that one party is going to affect the success of a marriage". This is not clear to me; it seems you two are talking about different things. But I have made no such statement, nor supported any such statement. But you directly stated that this was my belief.

I stand corrected then if your comments didn't include mheslep's beliefs. He seemed to feel you were in agreement when he thanked you. Be careful to be sure you've read all posts by the member and are aware of the agenda the member is pushing.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I stand corrected then if your comments didn't include mheslep's beliefs. He seemed to feel you were in agreement when he thanked you. Be careful to be sure you've read all posts by the member and are aware of the agenda the member is pushing.

mheslep has nearly 2000 posts; I don't claim to have read them all. I agree with statements, not people. I have agreed with statements by mheslep and hundreds of other posters here, but I haven't ever given an unconditional endorsement of everything written by a given person.

Thank you for understanding.

 

[Evo]

mheslep has nearly 2000 posts; I don't claim to have read them all. I agree with statements, not people. I have agreed with statements by mheslep and hundreds of other posters here, but I haven't ever given an unconditional endorsement of everything written by a given person.

Thank you for understanding.

Thank you for accepting my apology.

And I only meant the lage page of posts.

 

[mheslep]

But you think a party with family and friends will affect the success of a marriage? Do either of you seriously stand behind your belief that one party is going to affect the success of a marriage?

Ok, I'll even give you no party. A few people show up to just watch the ceremony and get no party.

Do you have any idea how many marriages start off with at least a friend or family member present to witness the "ceremony"? You do realize that even a judge at the courthouse holds a small ceremony for the couple. I'm just in utter disbelief at this point that either of you can suggest that marriages with a "cermony" or have some people attending have a higher success rate.

All right, let's see the proof, prove me wrong. Post the research.

Evo, sorry for last night's curtness.

Everything above is my opinion alone, for whatever its worth. I'm sure everyone is aware that many marriages start at a courthouse with a small crowd. I've attended a couple such, one as best man / witness, and that couple is doing fine. I'll add that the groom put some thought into his vows and took the affair seriously. The ceremony, small or otherwise, in my mind tends to encourage the statement: "we are no longer just hanging out, but proclaim our commitment to each other, here before all."

I don't put much stock in the bells and whistles for their own sake, but rather, as I said above, the seriousness of mindset one brings to the occasion, and the thought given to friends and family who join in the affair.

Oh, and I'd have to back off from the 'all important' description above to 'important'.

 

[DanP]

The ceremony, small or otherwise, in my mind tends to encourage the statement: "we are no longer just hanging out, but proclaim our commitment to each other, here before all."

A ceremony does nothing of this kind. And if you need to proclaim before all your commitment for encouragement, than you are in big trouble anyway. Commitment is intrinsic. Proclaiming it in front of an audience doesn't serve to much.

Marrying another person is also to become part of their extended family.

I usually get to know this family way before a wedding ceremony. And the ones I don't know by then, are the ones Ill probably only see once in a lifetime, at the wedding, and never again :P

It's a mistake to think otherwise, thus elopers attempting to avoid that are lowering their odds of success.

This is a personal opinion and I don't think it holds true. No gathering of friends, priests and relatives will make me more or less committed to a women than I already am. I don't believe there is any statistical difference in failed marriages between elopers and ceremonial weddings with all the bells and whistles.

I believe in self-determination. All my life I've looked for intrinsic motivations in just about everything I've done. I don't believe in symbols.

 

[mheslep]

A ceremony does nothing of this kind. And if you need to proclaim before all your commitment for encouragement, than you are in big trouble anyway. Commitment is intrinsic. Proclaiming it in front of an audience doesn't serve to much.

I hear you, and strongly disagree. Our society is loaded with similar kinds of commitment ceremonies, and they are not (solely) for encouragement either: the public swearing in of the President and public officials, the oath of officers entering the armed services, and so on. The common thread running through them all is a recognition of solemn commitment. Legally, none of them require any ceremony or public display whatsoever. I contend that a big part of the actual definition of marriage (and the other examples), vs dating or shacking up, is a change in the relationship of the couple to society at large, i.e., it is not an act taken in isolation, it is not (solely) intrinsic.

I usually get to know this family way before a wedding ceremony.

Well getting to know the family before the ceremony is also a function of the fact that one is holding a ceremony. Thus the large and immediate uptake in family member visits after an engagement, in my experience.

This is a personal opinion

Yep. Most all of this is, along with some logical definitional language.

and I don't think it holds true.

No gathering of friends, priests and relatives will make me more or less committed to a women than I already am. I don't believe there is any statistical difference in failed marriages between elopers and ceremonial weddings with all the bells and whistles.

I doubt the latter is true (speculation), though no doubt some elopers live happy ever after. The former misses my point. The ceremony of course can't force true commitment. I contend that too many drift into long term relationships, married or not, without seriously reflecting on what it means to be truly committed, and then actually doing it. The act of simply agreeing to get married, implying a small/large/whatever ceremony is pending with all implied family interactions, in my view it is much more likely to avoid that uncommitted 'drift', especially for the young and inexperienced. Simply collecting a legal certificate need not entail any of the above except some via financial/tax concerns.

 

[DanP]

I hear you, and strongly disagree. Our society is loaded with similar kinds of commitment ceremonies, and they are not (solely) for encouragement either: the public swearing in of the President and public officials, the oath of officers entering the armed services, and so on. The common thread running through them all is a recognition of solemn commitment.

Sure,ceremony is for show, for the people, but its value it's 0. It didn't stopped Clinton to tap Lewinsky. It doesn't stop governors from sleeping with call girls. It doesn't stop anyone to do anything in fact. My point is, its the human will and the choices they make. Ceremony doesn't play any role in commitment. It's circus, IMO.

 

[mheslep]

[...]Ceremony doesn't play any role in commitment.

Well that's not true in at least my case. Of course, my wife might read all this and drive off immediately with the kids. There but for the grace ...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

the public swearing in of the President and public officials, the oath of officers entering the armed services, and so on. The common thread running through them all is a recognition of solemn commitment. Legally, none of them require any ceremony or public display whatsoever.

I am unsure about the rest but the oath of the president is a legal necessity outlined in the constitution and an oath, or affirmation, can be legally binding.

 

[Char. Limit]

I am unsure about the rest but the oath of the president is a legal necessity outlined in the constitution and an oath, or affirmation, can be legally binding.

However, 'tis not required that the swearing be public. For example, after the Chief Justice screwed up the oath, President Obama took the oath in private, without public display.

I'm not sure if marriages should be private or not, so I can't help here... too busy worrying about surviving prom night to worry about details of marriage.

So, in conclusion, public displays and ceremonies are not necessary or even quite justifiable (in my quite prideful opinion) to a marriage.

 

[DanP]

Well that's not true in at least my case.

So if it wasn't for the ceremony, you would have left already ? You are committed because the oaths you took and the ceremony , or because you love your women and want to be with her no matter what ?