Obama - Romney debate

Like Tree382Likes

Wait...Romney called Obama a boy? How I need the receipts cause I had to run to the store for orthopedic inserts before 6am LOL so I missed the rest. Don't you know boy is not a word to address a black man by. Was it a "listen here boy" or "you wanna of my boys" boy?
Originally Posted by murrrcat

This is what Romney said:

“Look, I’ve got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true but just keep repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it. But that is not the case.”
To me, it was an underhanded way of calling Obama a BOY. Romney's sons are men...in their 30's and 40's. He said it as boys on purpose. We all know why.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
I'm no MR apologist, but I think that's a stretch there. He was calling him a liar with that comparison to his sons, not "boy."

So Obama kinda flopped last night. Oh well. I'm still voting for him! Romney scares the beejeezus out of me.
Korkscrew likes this.

Last edited by LAwoman; 10-04-2012 at 09:06 AM.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I am saying about the Catholic church - because I am not Catholic, I cannot have a full-on sacramental Catholic mass, literally and physically IN A CATHOLIC CHURCH, for my wedding ceremony, even if the groom is Catholic. Trust me, I have friends for whom this was a major ordeal because the special dispensation for the groom almost didn't come in in time for the wedding, etc etc. The Catholic church requires at least one spouse to be Catholic, and the other to be at minimum a baptized Christian, to recognize the marriage, and if the non-Catholic is unbaptized, it requires special dispensation from the Bishop. And if one of the people is divorced, then you can't be married in the Catholic church at all.
Originally Posted by susirene

This is untrue.
Originally Posted by Amneris

I think it is true.
Originally Posted by CanItBeChristine
Check your catechism, CIBC!

It is untrue that the Church only recognizes marriages between baptized persons. As the OP acknowledges, permission can be obtained to marry a non-Christian and if instruction is taken, they can be married in the Church. I have been to plenty of those marriages.

It is untrue that a non-Catholic can't marry a Catholic in the Church, as was said elsewhere. As long as counselling and instruction are taken and the non-Catholic states that they are open to raising any children of the marriage Catholic, they can be married in the Church. I have been to plenty of those marriages as well.

It is also untrue that divorced persons cannot marry in the Catholic church. They require annulments and counselling. In some dioceses those are easier to get than in others, and as the OP pointed out, permission may be late or slow in coming, but there is no absolute bar to marriage in those circumstances either. Again, I have been to plenty of those marriages.

Two Catholics getting married also have to take counselling and courses. Marriage is a sacrament in the Church and the Church takes it seriously and provides the procedures it views as important. For those who do not want the hassle, there is civil marriage (which, as is pointed out, is the only legally recognized form of marriage anyway. Divorced persons usually have to get a civil divorce before they can start the Church process.)

As to the full nuptial mass, not being a Catholic is not an absolute bar to having one either. In my experience, priests generally don't recommend them where one person is not a Catholic because they cannot receive the eucharist, nor can their non-Catholic friends and relatives, and it is divisive on a day which is about unity. But if they choose, they can have mass and the non-Catholics can be blessed or not go forward. It's no different than attending a regular mass - anyone can attend but not all can receive.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











I'm not feeling optimistic about Obama winning another term.
Originally Posted by medussa
Last night when Romney was speaking I thought, "Oh, god. I'm looking at the next president."
Originally Posted by Springcurl
Ok. You felt it too.

I don't want this man to win. I want him and his white privilege ass to go back to the country club and disappear.

Sorry I wrote "ass." I just feel so strongly about this. And I'm a little scared.


I think it is true.
Originally Posted by CanItBeChristine
A friend just wen thru this. She is not catholic and her husband is. They had to go thru special couseling and sign all this papers, and get "authorization" to have the ceremony at a catholic church. it was all a hassle. I think if you have enough money you can bypass this. I know Alec baldwin just got married in a catholic church which is a no-no for most folks because he is divorce. niether of my two divorced aunts could do it, they had to go to the justice of the peace.
Originally Posted by thelio
My son was married in a Catholic Church in Guatemala. He actually had to convert and be baptized. He didn't really convert - he's agnostic and probably always will be, but he had to do the baptism thing in order to be married in the "eyes of God" for his wife.
Originally Posted by Kitschy
Well, his wife imposed the condition and he agreed to it. The Church didn't and can't force him to be baptized.

The argument wasn't that it can be difficult or annoying for non-Catholics to marry in Catholic churches - the argument was that they CAN'T. And this is untrue.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali













I think it is true.
Originally Posted by CanItBeChristine
If one of the people is Catholic and divorced, all you have to do is get the church to consider your marriage annulled under the eyes of the church. You are still legally (under the eyes of the law) divorced; just a way for the church to get around it. I know this because my husband's ex-wife had their marriage "annulled by the Catholic church."
Originally Posted by munchkin
My fiancee and I are having our 1st marriages annulled. It's not such an easy process. We had to get a lot of paperwork together, get witnesses, and fill out a very lengthy questionare. It also is costing us each $500. The process could take from 18 to 24 months to be completed. I wasn't raised Catholic, so this all seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Originally Posted by Lotsawaves
What I don't understand is why non-Catholics who don't agree with these requirements consent to them and then complain. Is it because your fiance pressures you and you feel you have to go along with it? That's not really the fault of the Church. If you don't desire marriage in the Church you (general you) should be honest with your partner and tell them that. If it is so important to them to marry in the Church, they should find a Catholic or someone amenable to the process. If YOU are important to them then they shouldn't insist on something you don't want. I don't think the Church is responsible for that. It has its own views on marriage, which we can debate because they are not necessarily all reasonable, but nonetheless, it is upfront about that and a Church marriage is not required. Most religious institutions have rules and procedures around marriage - some stricter than others and you can certainly shop around. Since the state ultimately provides marriage, you can also opt out of religious marriage altogether if you want to get married more quickly. Or you can have a civil marriage first and do a religious ceremony later (some do it the other way round in other religions such as Islam.)
Poodlehead likes this.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Wait...Romney called Obama a boy? How I need the receipts cause I had to run to the store for orthopedic inserts before 6am LOL so I missed the rest. Don't you know boy is not a word to address a black man by. Was it a "listen here boy" or "you wanna of my boys" boy?
Originally Posted by murrrcat


This is what Romney said:

“Look, I’ve got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true but just keep repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it. But that is not the case.”
To me, it was an underhanded way of calling Obama a BOY. Romney's sons are men...in their 30's and 40's. He said it as boys on purpose. We all know why.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
I agree, and in addition to that, he's also implying Obama is green / young / inexperienced / naive / a hopeless dreamer.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali












A friend just wen thru this. She is not catholic and her husband is. They had to go thru special couseling and sign all this papers, and get "authorization" to have the ceremony at a catholic church. it was all a hassle. I think if you have enough money you can bypass this. I know Alec baldwin just got married in a catholic church which is a no-no for most folks because he is divorce. niether of my two divorced aunts could do it, they had to go to the justice of the peace.
Originally Posted by thelio
My son was married in a Catholic Church in Guatemala. He actually had to convert and be baptized. He didn't really convert - he's agnostic and probably always will be, but he had to do the baptism thing in order to be married in the "eyes of God" for his wife.
Originally Posted by Kitschy
Well, his wife imposed the condition and he agreed to it. The Church didn't and can't force him to be baptized.

The argument wasn't that it can be difficult or annoying for non-Catholics to marry in Catholic churches - the argument was that they CAN'T. And this is untrue.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Actually you are incorrect. The Church, in this case in Guatemala, imposed the condition. Are you calling me a liar?




This is what Romney said:



To me, it was an underhanded way of calling Obama a BOY. Romney's sons are men...in their 30's and 40's. He said it as boys on purpose. We all know why.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
Women in our part of PA are referred to as girls. It is a colloquialism. Just the way we say it. I know you are an Obama supporter, but WOW that is a stretch. I did not and don't think anyone else took that statement as Romney calling Obama a boy.
Originally Posted by munchkin


I think to black people, the "boy" thing is much more than a colloquialism.

That was an OBVIOUS "zinger" by Romney, very rehearsed and practiced. That word was carefully crafted to zing Obama as a boy, in the colonial-slavery sense, and I absolutely believe it was intentional, even if I wasn't an Obama supporter.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
I think the "entitled" comments are even worse racial coding. That's basically saying "This Black man feels entitled to be President for another term when he should be LUCKY he even got one! There are lots of white people who haven't even had the chance to be President yet, and he thinks he can affirmative-action his way into another term?"

Romney's whole campaign has this subtext of "vote for the white guy." I don't even know if he always realizes it.
curlyarca and coilynapp like this.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali













This is untrue.
Originally Posted by Amneris

I think it is true.
Originally Posted by CanItBeChristine
Check your catechism, CIBC!

It is untrue that the Church only recognizes marriages between baptized persons. As the OP acknowledges, permission can be obtained to marry a non-Christian and if instruction is taken, they can be married in the Church. I have been to plenty of those marriages.

It is untrue that a non-Catholic can't marry a Catholic in the Church, as was said elsewhere. As long as counselling and instruction are taken and the non-Catholic states that they are open to raising any children of the marriage Catholic, they can be married in the Church. I have been to plenty of those marriages as well.

It is also untrue that divorced persons cannot marry in the Catholic church. They require annulments and counselling. In some dioceses those are easier to get than in others, and as the OP pointed out, permission may be late or slow in coming, but there is no absolute bar to marriage in those circumstances either. Again, I have been to plenty of those marriages.

Two Catholics getting married also have to take counselling and courses. Marriage is a sacrament in the Church and the Church takes it seriously and provides the procedures it views as important. For those who do not want the hassle, there is civil marriage (which, as is pointed out, is the only legally recognized form of marriage anyway. Divorced persons usually have to get a civil divorce before they can start the Church process.)

As to the full nuptial mass, not being a Catholic is not an absolute bar to having one either. In my experience, priests generally don't recommend them where one person is not a Catholic because they cannot receive the eucharist, nor can their non-Catholic friends and relatives, and it is divisive on a day which is about unity. But if they choose, they can have mass and the non-Catholics can be blessed or not go forward. It's no different than attending a regular mass - anyone can attend but not all can receive.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Amneris is right. A baptized nonCatholic Christian can marry a Catholic in a Catholic church w/ no problem. (Not sure about other religions.)

Same w/ the divorce issue. Divorced people can get married in a Catholic church if they are granted a Catholic annulment for their divorce. (Not all divorces will meet the criteria for the annulment, tho.)

At my kids' Catholic baptisms, nonCathoic guests were even encouraged to take communiuon! That goes against Catholic teaching but is becoming more common, I think...
Amneris likes this.
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG

The Church does not as a rule permit marriages between Catholics and the unbaptized (Can. 1086.1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.)But the diocesan bishop may, if he sees fit, grant a dispensation to permit such a wedding to be celebrated in the Catholic Church (Can. 85 A dispensation, or the relaxation of a merely ecclesiastical law in a particular case, can be granted by those who possess executive power within the limits of their competence, as well as by those who have the power to dispense explicitly or implicitly either by the law itself or by legitimate delegation.)
I think Romney took this debate, but I am still undecided. I realized politics is like a trial; each side has their "expert" and each expert has a different opinion. You just have to figure out which one you believe.

.
Originally Posted by munchkin

Except that a trial is decided on the basis of proven facts and evidence. You can't just come in and spout off your opinion.
Originally Posted by Amneris
I've seen many trials on TV (48 Hours, etc.) where each side's expert has a different set of facts (or as I call it, a different opinion).
3b/c
I'm not feeling optimistic about Obama winning another term.
Originally Posted by medussa
Last night when Romney was speaking I thought, "Oh, god. I'm looking at the next president."
Originally Posted by Springcurl


I did not think that at all. This election will be won where it is always won...in the few battleground swing states...and Obama is leading in all of them, often in double digits. One bad debate performance isn't going to erase all that. Don't fall into the trap of thinking this is lost...that's what the Reps want you to think.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
I didn't think that either. Polls mean nothing unless you look at polls on a state-by-state basis. I thought Obama did horribly last night but I am not even close to throwing in the towel.
When are women going to face the fact that they don’t know their own bodies as well as men who have heard things?

Don Langrick
Bonsai Culturist

My son was married in a Catholic Church in Guatemala. He actually had to convert and be baptized. He didn't really convert - he's agnostic and probably always will be, but he had to do the baptism thing in order to be married in the "eyes of God" for his wife.
Originally Posted by Kitschy
Well, his wife imposed the condition and he agreed to it. The Church didn't and can't force him to be baptized.

The argument wasn't that it can be difficult or annoying for non-Catholics to marry in Catholic churches - the argument was that they CAN'T. And this is untrue.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Actually you are incorrect. The Church, in this case in Guatemala, imposed the condition. Are you calling me a liar?
Originally Posted by Kitschy
Kitschy, this is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic. It does not say anything about imposing a condition on someone to be baptized.

I am not calling you a liar. It's possible a rogue priest pressured your son or misrepresented or misunderstood the teachings and told him he had to be baptized, or that his wife TOLD him the priest said that, maybe because she also misunderstood, or that in that area, they have a practice of requesting baptisms despite official teachings. Or that your son or you misunderstood what was said. The point is that this is not an official requirement in every Catholic Church and is not official doctrine, though it may have happened, and there is room for bishops to determine their own processes, which may in some cases include requesting baptism of the non-Catholic party. But baptism must be done freely and voluntarily.

“Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.

“According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority. In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage. This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage; and furthermore that the Catholic party confirms the obligations, which have been made known to the non-Catholic party, of preserving his or her own faith and ensuring the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.

“Through ecumenical dialogue Christian communities in many regions have been able to put into effect a common pastoral practice for mixed marriages. Its task is to help such couples live out their particular situation in the light of faith, overcome the tensions between the couple's obligations to each other and towards their ecclesial communities, and encourage the flowering of what is common to them in faith and respect for what separates them.

“In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband." It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith. Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion” (CCC 1633-1637).

The Church’s Code of Canon Law (CIC) states, “A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid. A person is not to be dispensed from this impediment unless the conditions mentioned in canons 1125 and 1126 have been fulfilled” (CIC 1086 §1-2).

Canon 1125 and 1126 state, “The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

“It is for the conference of bishops to establish the method in which these declarations and promises, which are always required, must be made and to define the manner in which they are to be established in the external forum and the non-Catholic party informed about them.”
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Amneris, did you see thelio's #150?

My son's case is a strange one indeed. He and his wife were actually already married in the US several months before the "sham" (for the family) Catholic wedding that happened in Guatemala. They weren't even aware of the nice wedding and reception that was held in Colorado.

I guess you do what you do to appease religions/family/cultures when you tie the knot, but in this case, and I am absolutely certain of this, my son was made to convert and be baptized.



If one of the people is Catholic and divorced, all you have to do is get the church to consider your marriage annulled under the eyes of the church. You are still legally (under the eyes of the law) divorced; just a way for the church to get around it. I know this because my husband's ex-wife had their marriage "annulled by the Catholic church."
Originally Posted by munchkin
My fiancee and I are having our 1st marriages annulled. It's not such an easy process. We had to get a lot of paperwork together, get witnesses, and fill out a very lengthy questionare. It also is costing us each $500. The process could take from 18 to 24 months to be completed. I wasn't raised Catholic, so this all seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Originally Posted by Lotsawaves
What I don't understand is why non-Catholics who don't agree with these requirements consent to them and then complain. Is it because your fiance pressures you and you feel you have to go along with it? That's not really the fault of the Church. If you don't desire marriage in the Church you (general you) should be honest with your partner and tell them that. If it is so important to them to marry in the Church, they should find a Catholic or someone amenable to the process. If YOU are important to them then they shouldn't insist on something you don't want. I don't think the Church is responsible for that. It has its own views on marriage, which we can debate because they are not necessarily all reasonable, but nonetheless, it is upfront about that and a Church marriage is not required. Most religious institutions have rules and procedures around marriage - some stricter than others and you can certainly shop around. Since the state ultimately provides marriage, you can also opt out of religious marriage altogether if you want to get married more quickly. Or you can have a civil marriage first and do a religious ceremony later (some do it the other way round in other religions such as Islam.)
Originally Posted by Amneris
Sometimes if something is really important to someone the person who loves them accomodates him/her(especially if it's not that important to that person). It's pretty ignorant/callous to say just find someone catholic or with the same values in one area instead. It's not that easy. It's hard for most people to find someone they actually want to spend the rest of their lives with and click on that level. Sports is very important to guys I've known. So should they eliminate all women that don't love sports like they do?? That are only watching the playoffs or superbowl just to watch it but don't really have their heart in it? I know religion is much deeper issue but many people can separate it from their partners and have different beliefs.
I think Romney took this debate, but I am still undecided. I realized politics is like a trial; each side has their "expert" and each expert has a different opinion. You just have to figure out which one you believe.

.
Originally Posted by munchkin

Except that a trial is decided on the basis of proven facts and evidence. You can't just come in and spout off your opinion.
Originally Posted by Amneris
I've seen many trials on TV (48 Hours, etc.) where each side's expert has a different set of facts (or as I call it, a different opinion).
Originally Posted by munchkin
They may choose to highlight or question different facts, but there still has to be a factual basis for the information given. You can't say "Well, there were fingerprints at the scene and they've been tested and shown to be the accused's fingerprints, and there are ten witnesses saying they saw the accused there, and the accused confessed to doing it, but my opinion is that he didn't do it because he is a nice guy."

You can say "Well, his fingerprints were there, but he was there earlier that day, and there are ten witnesses, but it's cross-racial identification / it was dark and they couldn't see clearly / the police did the ID improperly and made suggestions to the witnesses, and the accused confessed but he has a low IQ and was improperly coerced into it by the police and denied his rights, so there is insufficient evidence to convict." You'd need some proof he was there earlier through a witness or something, an exert on the problems with cross-racial identification, testimony from the witnesses as to sloppy work by the police, etc. for this theory to be given any weight. It isn't just some lawyer's crazy opinion.
Springcurl likes this.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











As for Romney, this is pretty much an accurate depiction of his debate performance:

Imagine someone offers you a job, and they tell you, “It’s going to be great! You’re going to love it.”

You ask, “Okay, so what will I be doing?”

“A lot of great things!”

“Well, what specifically?”

They answer, “One, something you LIKE. Two, something that will make you look good. Three…”

You’re sort of frustrated, so you cut them off and ask, “Can you tell me anything about what I’d actually be doing on a day to day basis?”

They just smile and say, “All the stuff you like, and none of the stuff you don’t like!”

Frustrated, you move on. “Whatever. Can you at least tell me what the job pays?”

They smile again and say, “The pay is going to be great! You’re going to love it!”

You blink at them, incredulous, and ask, “But what amount will actually be on my paycheck?”

“You’re going to be very pleased. Don’t worry.”

Getting more upset, you ask, “What about benefits?”

“You’ll have some.”

“What specifically?”

They smile confidently and punch you playfully on the arm. “Oh, you. You ask some great questions.”

“I know. So what is the answer?”

“It’s going to be great. I PROMISE.”

“What about time off?” you press.

They stand there smiling at you like a cardboard cut out.

“Do I get sick time? Vacation? What hours will I be working? Is it a salaried job? Hourly? Who will be my boss?” Blank smile. “Can you even tell me where I will be working?”

They grin and gush, yet again, “Trust me, you’re really going to like it. It’s going to do lots of great things for you.”

Would you take this job?

If you answered no, then you understand why I don’t think Romney won the debate tonight and why I don’t want him to be my president.
Or:

Attachment 25467

There's this perception that he did well because he told a whole slew of lies like he believed them. He can afford to be aggressive in a way Obama can't.
I wish Obama would have at least brought up how he tried to take credit for things in Massachusetts that weren't his doing.
Originally Posted by Saria
I felt like this as well.


And the Massachsetts thing - the man and I live in, and grew up in Massachusetts. When he said that about 'why do you think Massachusetts has such great schools....' we were both like, WHAT??!! Massachusetts and it's great schools is not because of you Mitt. You do not get to take credit for that.

He looked entirely too smug. His smirk was very offputting. And he said nothing that we haven't heard in commercials.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using CurlTalk App
I'm not feeling optimistic about Obama winning another term.
Originally Posted by medussa
Last night when Romney was speaking I thought, "Oh, god. I'm looking at the next president."
Originally Posted by Springcurl


I did not think that at all. This election will be won where it is always won...in the few battleground swing states...and Obama is leading in all of them, often in double digits. One bad debate performance isn't going to erase all that. Don't fall into the trap of thinking this is lost...that's what the Reps want you to think.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
Don't get me wrong, it'll make me work harder and send the Obama campaign more $$. But I'm a worrier by nature and the lead is narrowing in those swing states. So in some sense maybe Obama's adequate performance last night is a good thing. I don't think it's over, but I do feel scared. Romney was my governor, I do NOT want him to be my president.


Obamacare is not a blueprint for socialism. You're thinking of the New Testament. ~~ John Fugelsang




My fiancee and I are having our 1st marriages annulled. It's not such an easy process. We had to get a lot of paperwork together, get witnesses, and fill out a very lengthy questionare. It also is costing us each $500. The process could take from 18 to 24 months to be completed. I wasn't raised Catholic, so this all seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Originally Posted by Lotsawaves
What I don't understand is why non-Catholics who don't agree with these requirements consent to them and then complain. Is it because your fiance pressures you and you feel you have to go along with it? That's not really the fault of the Church. If you don't desire marriage in the Church you (general you) should be honest with your partner and tell them that. If it is so important to them to marry in the Church, they should find a Catholic or someone amenable to the process. If YOU are important to them then they shouldn't insist on something you don't want. I don't think the Church is responsible for that. It has its own views on marriage, which we can debate because they are not necessarily all reasonable, but nonetheless, it is upfront about that and a Church marriage is not required. Most religious institutions have rules and procedures around marriage - some stricter than others and you can certainly shop around. Since the state ultimately provides marriage, you can also opt out of religious marriage altogether if you want to get married more quickly. Or you can have a civil marriage first and do a religious ceremony later (some do it the other way round in other religions such as Islam.)
Originally Posted by Amneris
Sometimes if something is really important to someone the person who loves them accomodates him/her(especially if it's not that important to that person). It's pretty ignorant/callous to say just find someone catholic or with the same values in one area instead. It's not that easy. It's hard for most people to find someone they actually want to spend the rest of their lives with and click on that level. Sports is very important to guys I've known. So should they eliminate all women that don't love sports like they do?? That are only watching the playoffs or superbowl just to watch it but don't really have their heart in it? I know religion is much deeper issue but many people can separate it from their partners and have different beliefs.
Originally Posted by Josephine
That's a different situation, Josephine. If you are choosing to accommodate the person, then I'm guessing you choose to accept whatever conditions that comes with, and complaining is pretty pointless.

What I'm saying is that if it is that important to someone to marry a Catholic in the Church that they're resorting to forcing someone to be baptized who apparently doesn't want to and doesn't actually believe it, lying to their family (as Kitcshy says her daughter in law did) etc. then it makes sense to marry someone who will actually want to comply, doesn't it? If you really love that person, then part of who they are is their beliefs, or lack of beliefs, and why would you force them to be someone they are not to please you or their family? Accommodation goes both ways. Some religious people assume that it is always the non-religious person who should compromise. I don't believe that that should be the case. I don't see how that is ignorant or callous. I think it is ignorant and callous to force people to adopt your beliefs. And when it comes to Catholics, there are plenty around - it's not hard to meet one.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











The Church does not as a rule permit marriages between Catholics and the unbaptized (Can. 1086.1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.)But the diocesan bishop may, if he sees fit, grant a dispensation to permit such a wedding to be celebrated in the Catholic Church (Can. 85 A dispensation, or the relaxation of a merely ecclesiastical law in a particular case, can be granted by those who possess executive power within the limits of their competence, as well as by those who have the power to dispense explicitly or implicitly either by the law itself or by legitimate delegation.)
Originally Posted by thelio
But a dispensation is available, and while in some cases the bishop will give people a harder time than in others, it's generally not that hard to get one, and rarely impossible. And this does not require anyone to get baptized. I guess if a dispensation were refused, you could either shop around for another church or give in and get baptized.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com