Philosophy 101

[Eilan]

They actually let you have a Catholic ceremony without the mass? Isn't the mass part of the sacrement? I thought most of the 7 sacrements included a mass.

I'm not qualified to say what it isn or isn't, but, yeah, we were allowed to do it. It pissed people off, but my ex didn't want to take part in any aspect of the ceremony that I couldn't participate in.

The non-mass ceremony is just about as long (ooh, a size thread) as the one with mass, though. I got my money's worth out of the dress.

 

[Guest]

 

[Eilan]

OK, now I'm curious.

was there any scripture/gospel readings or communion?

Readings, yes. Communion, no.

 

[Guest]

 

[EJFan]

the sad thing about our voting system is that too many people that are eligible don't bother to vote. this drives me nuts. Last Nov. the election, if I recall correctly, were all for local offices. I went to the polls at lunch time. we have 10 wards in my city, and when I walked into my ward's polling place, there was one other person there. went I left the booth, I saw one other person coming in. pathetic. I'm pretty sure that all the people that weren't there are the same ones that write letters to the editor to the local paper so their complaints can be published.

i know what you mean scalywag... and i agree with you.

i dont' know about anyone else, but i've always said that local elections are FAR more important than national ones. there are two things i can't stand... the first is the people who preach at people to get out and vote, yet they only vote in presidential elections themselves. the second is the people who say "men fought and died for you to have the right to vote." i take great exception to that remark... men fought and died for me to have the CHOICE as to whether i want to vote or not.

 

[Guest]

 

[DLL]

Separate civil and religious wedding? you've got to be kidding. I don't in any way suggest I know the details of the law, but it seems to me the present system allows for clergy to serve as the representative for providing the civil marriage while simultaneously providing the religious marriage. but not everyone is religious, so then the civil marriage is available.

my wife and I were married (almost 22 years ago) in the chapel in the picture below by a JP. Do you suggest it was any less a marriage than if it was done by Rev. So-and-SO or Father What's-his-name?

No I am not...but if you were to get divorced who would you see Father Tom or a a lawyer?? thats my point..I believe in religious ceremony..I am an Italian Catholic..can you imagine my wedding??/ Short of the Pope being there it was quite religious...


and that was a beautiful church you were married in

 

[DLL]

I agree with your assessment of DLL's right wing propaganda.

but, am I wrong in assuming that clergy have attained some sort of legal ability to perform a marriage? (I really don't know anything about this)

e xcuse me..its not right wing I was talking from a legal standpoint...

 

[Guest]

 

[DLL]

OK, i should have put a after my comment about the propaganda. It was meant in a somewhat joking manner, although the undertones are still there.

And no I wouldn't go to Father Tom, I wasn't married in a religious ceremony anyway. But I believe in the eyes of the Catholic Church, unless a marriage is annulled, doesn't the Church still consider you married if you were married in the Church, and therefore cannot marry again in the Church? Then you would have to go see Father Tom.

......a lot of confusion exists in the area of annulments .. Divorce deals with a marriage in a civil manner and an annulment deals with the sacrament. When one gets a divorce, usually lawyers and the two people are involved and dissolve the marriage in a civil way. Thus, agreements on who gets what, the house, custody of children, financial arrangements etc. are talked about. Regarding annulments: the Catholic Church teaches that the covenant of marriage is a lifelong and exclusive paratnership of a man and woman and that Jesus has raised marriage between two baptized persons to the level of a sacrament. Church law presumes all marriages valid and thus indissoluble as long as both parties remain alive and were free to marry at the time consent was expressed in a lawful manner. While the state permits divorce as a means to end a legally contracted marriage, the Catholic Church holds that the marriage vows, by their very nature, cannot be dissolved by any civil power. Thus the marriage bond remains in place unless it can be established that valid marital consent was not exchanged.

This last part is very important. If a person and the church can show that valid marital consent was not exchanged, it can thus show that their never was a valid marriage contract in the beginning. A person petitions the church for an annulment and if it is granted the person is free to marry again in the Catholic Church.


I am not a Priest mind you but I think this is correct....

 

[DLL]

OK, i should have put a after my comment about the propaganda. It was meant in a somewhat joking manner, although the undertones are still there.

And no I wouldn't go to Father Tom, I wasn't married in a religious ceremony anyway. But I believe in the eyes of the Catholic Church, unless a marriage is annulled, doesn't the Church still consider you married if you were married in the Church, and therefore cannot marry again in the Church? Then you would have to go see Father Tom.

most people the second time around certainly could care less about being married in a church..they will make damn sure their finances are well protected and a lawyer will be their new best friend believe me...so Father Tom I am afriad will be hearing confessions from little ol'ladies from pasadena

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[DLL]

OK, that's a much better explanation than I could present.

But when a Priest in performing a marriage ceremony, isn't he acting in two roles at the same time? Such as he is acting as an agent of the Church in performing the service, and acting as an agent of the state in simultaneously performing the civil connection? He does sign the marriage license, doesn't he?

A marriage license is a piece of paper that authorizes you to get married and a marriage certificate is a document that proves you are married.
Typically, couples obtain a marriage license, hold the wedding ceremony, and then have the person who performed the ceremony file a marriage certificate in the appropriate county office within a few days. (This may be the office of the county clerk, recorder or registrar, depending on where you live.) The married couple will be sent a certified copy of the marriage certificate within a few weeks after the marriage ceremony....
Most states require both spouses, along with the person who officiated and one or two witnesses, to sign the marriage certificate; often this is done just after the ceremony.

 

[midwestyankee]

OK, that's a much better explanation than I could present.

But when a Priest in performing a marriage ceremony, isn't he acting in two roles at the same time? Such as he is acting as an agent of the Church in performing the service, and acting as an agent of the state in simultaneously performing the civil connection? He does sign the marriage license, doesn't he?

This is correct. When your priest or minister signs the certificate of marriage, it is a binding marriage under the laws of your state - and by virtue of some constitutional provision or another (I forget the # even though I heard it on West Wing the other night) is valid in all other states.

In my view, this is where the confusion about the "morality" of same-sex marriage originates. People see marriage in religious terms because so many American marriages have been performed by members of the clergy. In fact, marriage is a legal status similar to being incorporated. The status confers certain rights and privileges and engenders certain obligations.

It's my view that because marriage is a civil matter, and because our constitution provides for a separation of church policy and governmental policy, then what constitutes marriage should be determined by civil action without the interference of any preferences that originate within any religion's beliefs.

I have no problem with a church organization establishing rules for its members that are based in their beliefs. I just don't want those beliefs forced upon the general public.

 

[silverwhisper]

and of course, here i thought this thread was actually to discuss, you know, philosophy.

anybody wanna go poke a hole in descarte's ontological argument?

ed

 

[DLL]

and of course, here i thought this thread was actually to discuss, you know, philosophy.

anybody wanna go poke a hole in descarte's ontological argument?

ed

i was just aswering the questions ahead...lol

 

[silverwhisper]

well, perhaps that's a question better-suited to a different thread. :>

i haven't solved any of the world's problems yet. i'm busy trying to solve my own! :>

ed

 

[EJFan]

ok. so here's a new point to ponder... i did my first philosophy paper on this very topic.

do you think women in the adult business (porn, stripping, prostitution etc.) are degraded by virtue of their profession?

 

[silverwhisper]

i believe that a person's reactions to any external stimuli depend upon how they process the stimulus in question.

i think that stripping or porn can lead a woman to view men as degraded creatures, what w/ the pawing and drooling that go along of practicing that trade. and i think that there are women who probably internalize those views and consider them valid.

but i subscribe to the view that it can be a route to empowerment. after all, a stripper or adult entertainer holds the power in that exchange.

as to hooking, given that a lot of pimps get their girls hooked on something to make them docile/obedient, i don't believe the same can be said.

ed

 

[EJFan]

i believe that a person's reactions to any external stimuli depend upon how they process the stimulus in question.

i think that stripping or porn can lead a woman to view men as degraded creatures, what w/ the pawing and drooling that go along of practicing that trade. and i think that there are women who probably internalize those views and consider them valid.

but i subscribe to the view that it can be a route to empowerment. after all, a stripper or adult entertainer holds the power in that exchange.

as to hooking, given that a lot of pimps get their girls hooked on something to make them docile/obedient, i don't believe the same can be said.

ed

i was actually thinking of LEGAL prostitution when i wrote the question (e.g.: in parts of NV)... just to clarify.

 

[silverwhisper]

ah, beg pardon. one does hear those stories of soccer moms fueling the loving wives category of stories here on lit w/ their extracurricular activities, but i'm not sure that i can speak confidently about it. i know that in the netherlands, sex workers do have a union, though.

ed

 

[Typo Fu Master]

ok. so here's a new point to ponder... i did my first philosophy paper on this very topic.

do you think women in the adult business (porn, stripping, prostitution etc.) are degraded by virtue of their profession?

The vast majority of society, at least here in America, looks down on that sort of thing. I'm sad to admit I'm one of them. I'm trying to change that, though. The problem is, I believe, the way I was raised. A lot of my family are god fearing people and instilled certain beliefs in me at an early age that even now, as a mature adult, I'm finding difficult to let go of. From a purely intellectual standpoint, there's nothing wrong with any of those professions. They're no better or worse than electing to become a lawyer or a doctor. But there's a stigma attached that I think comes from a christian belief that Sex Is Bad. I'm not trying to single out Christianity, it's just the religion I'm most familiar with. I would say it applies to any religion that feels sex and anything to do with lustful desires is wrong.

 

[midwestyankee]

ok. so here's a new point to ponder... i did my first philosophy paper on this very topic.

do you think women in the adult business (porn, stripping, prostitution etc.) are degraded by virtue of their profession?

What do you mean by "degraded?"

 

[EJFan]

What do you mean by "degraded?"

i mean does it make a woman less of a woman to be involved in the adult business... is it anti-feminist... is it demeaning... that kind of thing.