Divorce epidemic and gay marriage is a consequence of Calvinism and not feminism/progressivism

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 29
Topic's author
#1
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,753
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
The problem with RW opposition to no-fault divorce and gay marriage is that it fundamentally misses the point. They are going to scream it was because of "feminism" or "degeneracy", but actually, the only reason this is the case is because John Calvin declared that marriage is not a sacrament in 1536.

If marriage is not a sacrament, then that means religious authorities have no connection to the institution of marriage. Because of this, marriage is now a "civil contract" bound to a law. Judges, not priests, make the call.

To understand what this means take the Puritan colony of Massachusetts and compare it to Ireland in 1994. Under a 17th century Calvinist dictatorship, divorce was legal and defined. Meanwhile in a western country 30 years ago it was illegal. The only reason? Differing Christian sect, and keep in mind we are talking about the Puritans here.

Transferring the domain to marriage from religious dogma to civil law means that the latter can be changed and fought by lawyers, in come divorce. In comes gay marriage. If you are raised with the belief in religious dogma there isnt any changing it nor debating. Marriage as a civil contract leads to this, which ultimately came from Protestantism.

Blaming divorce epidemic on women isnt't wrong per se, but it misses the point. The enemy is Calvinism. Period.
#2
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,794
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Divorce epidemic and gay marriage is a consequence of Calvinism
No, it's the result of people not caring about the rules of the denomination they follow and doing whatever they want. Divorce rates have gone up even among Catholics. And the Catholic Church doesn't recognize civil divorce as actual divorce. So from a Catholic POV, there is no divorce epidemic, just a lot of people committing adultery. Which was happening long before Calvinism.
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,447
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

In terms of mixed marriages, Catholics who marry Protestants or non-religious spouses have a divorce rate of 49% and 48% respectively.
Topic's author
#4
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,753
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Savant
The Catholic Church may not recognize it but how many Catholics recognize that?
#5
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,794
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The Catholic Church may not recognize it but how many Catholics recognize that?
If Catholics can't even follow their own religion correctly, Calvinists aren't the problem.
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,875
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@Savant
Nope, it's about a new age of sexual realism, juxtaposed with the new age of gender equality.

Wherein the old theo-mysogynistic shackles have been removed from a society.

So, conditioned people do still get hung up on Religious bunkum, though not coveting their neighbours Ox, nor his/her wife's Ass is now more likely to be regarded as over-bunkum.

Making  it OK for either him or her to covet the Filipina Nannies Ass...As it were.

Marriage these days is all about the big knees up...Sign here on the dotted line...Party time.

And coveting must be an old Christian synonym for masturbation.


Of course Doc, some people get more hung up more than others.

Top of the morning to ya.




#7
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 216
1
2
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
1
2
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If people can divorce, it is normal that some people will use that right. You cant really give people rights and at the same time expect they wont use their rights.
#8
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,835
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
If people can divorce, it is normal that some people will use that right. You cant really give people rights and at the same time expect they wont use their rights.
Divorces are working out well for people who have gone through it. They are free to try again.
Topic's author
#9
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,753
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Savant
Not interested in discussing individuals
Topic's author
#10
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,753
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It shouldn't be a right
#11
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,794
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The Catholic Church may not recognize it but how many Catholics recognize that?
That's you discussing individuals.
Topic's author
#12
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,753
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Savant
To understand what this means take the Puritan colony of Massachusetts and compare it to Ireland in 1994. Under a 17th century Calvinist dictatorship, divorce was legal and defined. Meanwhile in a western country 30 years ago it was illegal. The only reason? Differing Christian sect, and keep in mind we are talking about the Puritans here.

Reconcile this 
#13
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,794
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Massachusetts is no longer a Puritan colony and has nothing to do with the divorce epidemic that includes Catholics. If we're not discussing individuals but just Catholic teaching, then there's no divorce epidemic anyway since civil divorces don't count.
Topic's author
#14
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,753
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Savant
Ok bro
#15
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 216
1
2
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
1
2
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It shouldn't be a right
In my expert opinion, no one should ever marry. Marriage mostly doesnt exist in nature. Animals rarely marry, and mostly practice polygamy.

Polygyny (type of polygamy) is typical of one-male, multi-female groups[3] and can be found in many species including: elephant seal,[4] spotted hyena,[5] gorilla, red-winged prinia, house wren, hamadryas baboon, common pheasant, red deer, Bengal tiger, Xylocopa sonorina, Anthidium manicatum and elk.[citation needed] Often in polygynous systems, females will provide the majority of parental care.[6]
#16
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,835
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
In my expert opinion, no one should ever marry. Marriage mostly doesnt exist in nature. Animals rarely marry, and mostly practice polygamy.

Why is marriage important in human society?
marriage is important in life because it touches on nearly every aspect of human existence--emotional, social, legal, spiritual, and personal. It provides a framework for love and companionship, creates a stable environment for raising children, and offers both partners the opportunity to grow and thrive together.

Topic's author
#17
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,753
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Polygamous societies are far worse off than monogamous 
#18
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 216
1
2
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
1
2
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@Shila
Most people had more than one partner in life.
Topic's author
#19
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,753
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
That's not polygamy
#20
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 2,240
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Savant
"No, it's the result of people not caring about the rules of the denomination they follow and doing whatever they want."

Correcto, correcto.
#21
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 2,240
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Animals rarely marry. Which animals rarely marry but once in a blue moon do?
#22
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,835
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Mall
Animals rarely marry. Which animals rarely marry but once in a blue moon do?

Although an estimated 90% of bird species partner up for life, the same can't be said for mammals. According to Hemanth P. Niar and Larry J Young's study, Genes to Brain to Behavior , it is estimated that only 3% to 5% of all mammal species (excluding humans) form monogamous relationships.
#23
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 2,240
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Shila
What does "marry" mean?
#24
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,835
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Mall
What does "marry" mean?

What does to marry someone mean?
To marry someone is to make an official, ceremonial commitment to be partners.
“The legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship.” ...
#25
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,447
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Shila

To marry someone is to make an official, ceremonial commitment to be partners.
OMG, I married my sex-bot!
#26
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,835
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
To marry someone is to make an official, ceremonial commitment to be partners.
OMG, I married my sex-bot!
Are you making that official?
#27
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,447
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Shila

No, whew, I guess we are not married.
#28
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,835
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
No, whew, I guess we are not married.
One less divorce to deal with.

#29
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,366
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
I think: none of the above

Rather, it's simply a culture of blind egotism.

I would say selfishness, but rand fell into that trap; it's a poorly defined word.

I mean people not only have an idea of the ideal partner but also the irrational conceit to think they deserve nothing less. They are taught by cultural subtext of modern drama that people are either compatible or they are not.

While it may be true that some people will never be compatible, and a very few may be compatible from the start, it is far far more likely that both parties need to work to become compatible.

That is why, for all its faults, arranged marriages worked so very often and the societies which used the practice were so stable. The price of quitting was high, so very high for both parties, so they tried.

Today people are like spoiled children, burying their petty grievances until they become mountains and chalk the resulting explosion up to 'fate', a cruel inversion of the romantic fairy-tale.



I am well in the objectivist camp when it comes to relationships, that rationality and honesty about self-interest are at the core of a healthy relationship; but what I just described is not rational, it's dishonest, it is ignoring reality.

It is a great irony that people who refuse to admit to having their own desires and expectations out of a relationship are also most likely to accuse the other partner of selfishness when it falls apart.