|
|
|
|
bjones
Skeptic Friend
Australia
82 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2001 : 18:29:54
|
Our Most Holiness Arhbishop George Pell has done it again.
It appears he proposes to tax all the people in Australia who get divorced accross the board whether they are Catholics or not. Just as well he is not an elected politician. He has trumped up some evidence that the children of divorced parents are more deprived than those of married parents. Well for happily married parents, sure. But that is why they are not getting divorced. Can he eliminate the happily married parents from his statistic? How can this be done? There are so many other factors to consider, gambling, violence, child abuse(Geoygy Pell take note) and the list on and not just divorce per se.
I thought you said all divorcees will be punished with eternal damnation George
Bob
-------------------------------
Remember when you die your philosophy dies with you
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
 Posted - 08/26/2001 : 07:53:34 [Permalink]
|
I feel that government should not be involved in the marriage business anyway. It's really the realm of religion. I think that if poeple want to get married, they should go to their local priest, minister, guru, or whatever and have the ceremony - and that's it. There should be no tax or benefit advantage/disadvantage to being married.
Greg.
|
 |
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2001 : 08:22:03 [Permalink]
|
Last Christmas my oldest daughter's teacher was feeling sorry for her because her parents were divorced. My daughter said, "Are you kidding, Mrs. Ross? Do you know how many times I'll have Christmas this year?!"
My ex and I get along better now than we have since we were engaged and couldn't keep our hands of each other (we do keep our hands off now  ). My parents have been married for 52 years, and I can remember as a child wishing they would divorce so we could all get some peace and quiet. Divorce isn't perfect, but neither is marriage. We all need the freedom to make the best choices for ourselves and our families without government intervention.
quote:
I feel that government should not be involved in the marriage business anyway.
I couldn't agree more.
Wendy Jones |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2001 : 09:04:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's really the realm of religion. I think that if poeple want to get married, they should go to their local priest, minister, guru, or whatever and have the ceremony - and that's it.
Now where do atheists fit in here. No justice of the peace to marry them. No insurance benefits for the partners. This concept would actually treat religous preferentially over atheists. This is the same argument homosexual couples have, they can't get married despite the stability of their relationships.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2001 : 12:15:47 [Permalink]
|
I think the most telling statistics about the degree to which people in the US worship the sanctity of marriage is that, when no-fault divorce legislation was whipping through state legislatures in the 70s and 80s, divorce rates were doubling or tripling virtually overnight. It only makes sense, really. Marriage is a life-altering occurrence for most; a bad marriage alters life badly. Given the now legally recognized choice, what are people most likely to do, voluntarily cohabitate with someone they can't get along with because god allegedly told someone sometime that marriage is an irrevocable sanctity, or get the hell out of there and use some cognitive dissonance to justify it? Another wonderful example of the selective application of religion. "Sure we believe, when it's not really inconvenient."
BTW, bjones, is your name really Bob Jones? And if so, are you aware of the irony that Americans would recognize, knowing an atheist named Bob Jones is commenting on marriage?
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2001 : 13:32:35 [Permalink]
|
Well, marriage could be looked at as being in the nature of a contractual relationship, which is hardly the province of religion.
I've always kind of liked my old state (Pennsylvania)'s take on getting married, which comes from their Quaker heritage, with its distaste for ceremony and religious entanglement with the gummint. In PA, there are only two requirements for a legal marriage: a valid license and a witnessed agreement to be husband and wife. No prescribed mumbo-jumbo, no mystic power attributed to ceremony, clergy or officialdom, just an agreement between two people to be married.
BTW, judging from what I've seen on the Autralian Indymedia sites, this fellow Pell seems to have quite a talent for putting his foot right in it, doesn't he?
Boris Karloff died for your sins.
Edited by - ktesibios on 08/26/2001 13:33:53 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 19:14:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've always kind of liked my old state (Pennsylvania)'s take on getting married, which comes from their Quaker heritage, with its distaste for ceremony and religious entanglement with the gummint. In PA, there are only two requirements for a legal marriage: a valid license and a witnessed agreement to be husband and wife. No prescribed mumbo-jumbo, no mystic power attributed to ceremony, clergy or officialdom, just an agreement between two people to be married.
I like the concept. Makes more sense than those expensive things that people practice.
I was particularly refering to the legal ramifications of marriage, i.e., spouses receiving insurance benefits, in case of children - child support and custody, who makes the decisions in place of a living will, etc.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
