tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post3967867634812396777..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Can a marriage be all about the woman?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger161125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-14323961023726230122012-04-24T01:07:01.281+10:002012-04-24T01:07:01.281+10:00By last comment do you mean mine?
Seems you don&#...By last comment do you mean mine?<br /><br />Seems you don't buy it because you're unwilling to accept the possibility that there may be a husband out there who doesn't try everything under the sun to repair the situation.<br /><br />Seems you have a view of men being faultless or nearly faultless in this regard.<br /><br />Both genders make mistakes in marriages.<br /><br />Many guys try everything under the sun he thinks will work not what she thinks will work as he doesn't ask her. <br /><br />'If things drag on for so long, a wife ought to do what she can to lovingly engage in a sexual relationship, even if she isn't in the mood at the outset.'<br /><br />Does 'do what she can' translate to:<br />#1 she has sex when she doesn't want to have sex with him and lovingly engages by not showing her lack of desire <br />#2 communicate why she's not in the mood, they work together to fix it, and once fixed they have sex if it cannot be fixed they part ways<br /><br />If #1 how would she lovingly engage if the husband is why she's not in the mood? <br /><br />If #1 why is lovingly engage important if her desire is irrelevant why isn't her show of desire irrelevant? Suggests to me that whether she genuinely wants sex doesn't matter only that she doesn't show it during.<br /><br />My main issue with #1 is how would the husband know there's a situation that needs repairing if the woman just puts out and shuts up or lovingly engages.<br /><br />Seems like it'd turn into a problem never being fixed because it's not made aware to be important to both parties:<br />1. Wife has sex with her husband despite not wanting to have sex with him because of X. <br /><br />2. Husband doesn't know of her not wanting sex with him because she has sex with him. <br /><br />3. Husband likely doesn't know of X.<br />OR<br />Husband knows of X but considers it trivial as it wasn't serious enough to put a clog in their sexual relationship.<br />OR<br />Husband knows of X as she repeatedly tells him so he takes it as nagging. Unimportant nagging as it hadn't put a clog in their sexual relationship.<br /><br />The likely result to me is divorce as she'll get tired of a husband she doesn't want to have sex with, resentful of having sex with a guy she doesn't want, and X.<br /><br />'We're talking about six months here. You can't run a system of monogamous marriage and justify a woman denying her husband without a pretty special reason for such a long period of time.'<br /><br />I justify denying sex if one doesn't want it otherwise to me that would be condoning rape.<br /><br />That pretty special reason is most likely she doesn't want to have sex with him. <br /><br />By 'can't justify denying him without a pretty special reason' are you implying that the husband is entitled to have sex with his wife regardless of her consent or wish? That rather than they work out why she doesn't want to have sex with him she ought to stop denying him and have sex?<br /><br />To me it's probably best suited to find out why your partner doesn't want to have sex with you.dahlingdarlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08736989315263845056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-63197077471194445952012-04-23T19:50:34.818+10:002012-04-23T19:50:34.818+10:00No, I don't buy that last comment.
Chances ar...No, I don't buy that last comment.<br /><br />Chances are the husband has been trying everything under the sun to repair the situation.<br /><br />If things drag on for so long, a wife ought to do what she can to lovingly engage in a sexual relationship, even if she isn't in the mood at the outset.<br /><br />We're talking about six months here. You can't run a system of monogamous marriage and justify a woman denying her husband without a pretty special reason for such a long period of time.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-52700946966354558242012-04-22T16:59:45.301+10:002012-04-22T16:59:45.301+10:00So if women think they have the right to say no ou...So if women think they have the right to say no out of lacking desire and their consent/desire is a good enough reason to respect the no that means marriage is all about women?<br /><br />It is telling that when it comes to marital sex possibilities such as don't seem to be considered-<br />$1 leave<br />divorce<br />#2 counsel <br />they may find out what problems in the marriage have led to the couple growing apart in other ways than sexually, which may make them want to be more sexually intimate<br />#3 communicate <br />the husband finding out how his own behavior is putting his wife off sex with him <br /><br />To many the only possible solution is the wife putting up and shutting up without the husband having to examine his own behavior one bit.<br /><br />Then again the solution doesn't really offer communication. As why she doesn't want sex is irrelevant as it's not a good reason to say no to him.<br /><br />I think a man having the mindset of 'don't deny without a good reason' is being almost entirely self-focused on the value of your own feelings and desires rather than showing loving concern for your wife by demanding sex regardless of your partner's feelings, desire, or consent.<br /><br />An unrealistic view of what might make a marraige work may be expecting your desire for sex to be accommodated but don't accommodate your wife's lack of desire for sex. As well as if accommodating the wife's lack consent and desires aren't a good reason.<br /><br />It's being focused on your right for sex rather than on understanding what might a relationship work and what might matter to women in a relationship.<br /><br />It's not being any good at compromising by looking at his wishes and desires as funadmental calling so much so that the wife is simply duty bound to respect them as its a need and her wifely duty.<br /><br />It seems more like rather than having sex with your wife it's about having sex with you wife's body. As whether she as her feelings, desires, and possibly consent don't matter. What matters is that she does her wifely duty.<br /><br />For some it may be sex with a female body if there's the threat of 'if I don't get it from you'.dahlingdarlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08736989315263845056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-75127201513328888262012-04-22T16:34:55.807+10:002012-04-22T16:34:55.807+10:00Tracey Cox seems to have some double standards goi...Tracey Cox seems to have some double standards going by what she advises women whose partners don’t want sex.<br /><br />#1 According to Cox don't let a lack of sex destroy a relationship if a they hasn't had sex for 12 years because of the dude but a woman can’t expect him to do the same.<br /><br /><br />MY husband has been ill for a very long time and I have not had sex for 12 years.<br /><br />We’re both in our 50s and he doesn’t think I should settle for life without sex.<br /><br />We don’t want to split because we love each other dearly but need a sexual companion for me.<br /><br />He’s heard there are websites set up for this. Would you recommend using them?<br /><br />Both of us have talked through the emotional complications and feel it’s worth at least trying.<br /><br />TRACEY SAYS: Be aware that what sounds good in theory often doesn’t work in practice.<br /><br />You’ve both made this decision in a very logical fashion and it might be the right one for you.<br /><br />But hearts and parts aren’t logical and I suspect your husband may still find he feels hurt, jealous, insecure and intimidated if you follow through.<br /><br />And you may feel like you’re betraying him, even with his permission. You don’t say how ill he is but if you think outside the square, there are lots of creative ways he could satisfy you.<br /><br />If that doesn’t work for you and you still want to proceed, I do agree choosing a stranger over a website to have sex with is a lot less hazardous than roping in a friend.<br /><br />Sex is a lot of things but be careful you don’t let lack of it destroy what seems like a lovely, albeit challenged, relationship.<br /><br />#2 According to Cox it’s ‘normal’ to go without sex for weeks if the dude prefers to have a wank, but a woman can’t expect him to do the same.<br /><br /><br />Q. WHY is it after 12 years of marriage my husband still denies masturbating?<br />I came home from work last week and found him in the office doing it. I crept back out again, so he has no idea I know.<br /><br />WE GO WEEKS WITHOUT SEX. Is there something wrong with me that he prefers to do this in secret?<br /><br />TRACEY SAYS: We’re much more open about masturbation now than we ever were, but some people still see it as something dirty to be ashamed of.<br /><br />So it could be your husband’s too embarrassed to ‘fess up. Or he may deny it because he worries you’d get upset – which you have!<br /><br />First up, it’s normal to go weeks without sex when you’ve been together 12 years. It’s also normal to masturbate in between. It doesn’t mean he’s not getting enough sex or that it’s unsatisfactory.<br />http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/lifestyle/good_sex_guru/482762/Tracey-Cox-Sex.htmldahlingdarlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08736989315263845056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-29581142487643141812011-03-24T04:17:29.849+11:002011-03-24T04:17:29.849+11:00"...#6 - Create traditional conservative segr..."...#6 - Create traditional conservative segregated communities where these values are celebrated and done...."<br /><br />There's only one so far: Orania<br />http://www.orania.co.za/english/van Rooineknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-72382395073471624332011-03-12T18:51:35.259+11:002011-03-12T18:51:35.259+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-82808625240515277362011-03-11T10:52:43.134+11:002011-03-11T10:52:43.134+11:00Ah, but Louise, doesn't a pre-nup suppose that...<i>Ah, but Louise, doesn't a pre-nup suppose that the marriage might not be permanent, meaning the couple isn't entering marriage in good faith, thereby invalidating it from a Catholic point of view? How come that doesn't count as watering down the sacrament but Kathy should be ashamed of her annulment? If you're going to take a hard line, it's got to be across the board, no?</i><br /><br />Excellent question, Thag, and one which I will have to think about further.<br /><br />I don't really have the expertise to address this properly and would probably need to discuss it with moral theologians, lawyers and canon lawyers to do the question justice. And I don't know any!<br /><br />Intuitively, I think you may be right, so perhaps I will withdraw my suggestion for now.<br /><br />But I was merely thinking of it as legal protection, the existence of which might help avoid such a calamity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-19730343249478513932011-03-11T10:24:20.338+11:002011-03-11T10:24:20.338+11:00Ah, but Louise, doesn't a pre-nup suppose that...Ah, but Louise, doesn't a pre-nup suppose that the marriage might not be permanent, meaning the couple isn't entering marriage in good faith, thereby invalidating it from a Catholic point of view? How come that doesn't count as watering down the sacrament but Kathy should be ashamed of her annulment? If you're going to take a hard line, it's got to be across the board, no?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-66052909766329415322011-03-11T10:21:48.166+11:002011-03-11T10:21:48.166+11:00Actually, in the meantime, you could encourage peo...Actually, in the meantime, you could encourage people (men, in particular) to have a pre-nuptial agreement prior to marriage. This could be the beginnings of a real solution, while the laws exist as they currently do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-62375335854060038402011-03-11T10:18:57.996+11:002011-03-11T10:18:57.996+11:00I have to admit I'm torn on this. I do view ma...<i>I have to admit I'm torn on this. I do view marriage as a sacrament and therefore understand the logic of the position taken by the Church.</i><br /><br />I understand why you would feel torn. <br /><br /><i>However, I struggle with the idea that a young man who married in good faith but is betrayed by his wife must then simply live celibately for the rest of his life, without the opportunity to be a father.</i><br /><br />Well, the sad thing is that although a serious Christian would be obliged to live thus (a very hard cross to carry, no doubt), most men would not even try, but would place their souls in jeopardy by taking up a mistress, in effect.<br /><br />However, this assumes that God cannot change her heart and help the husband forgive his wife, if he would just take a stand for his marriage and trust in God. This is not so. God is faithful, and He does bring prodigals home.<br /><br />I realise this is not much use for those who are irreligious and will therefore not be helpful for you to write about on a blog which is geared to a much broader group (a good thing), but if you could accept it for yourself and your fellow Catholics - I know it's hard - you would simply not write posts like this one.<br /><br />Perhaps a better approach for a post which says "take courage, your life is not over if your wife leaves you" is to state the truth that a man's life is not over, even if his faithless wife leaves him and takes the children. He can still contribute. His life can still have meaning and purpose.<br /><br /><i>It would not be such a looming issue in a culture that was informed by Catholic principles and in which few men would find themselves in such a position. But we do not live in such a culture.</i><br /><br />I know, I know. It's horrendous. But the horrible truth is that this will only deteriorate further, as practicing Catholics continue to compromise on this issue. Catholics and all Christians (but Protestant theology and practice is inherently dodgy on divorce anyway) need to take a firm stand on this issue, or really, the collapse will come soon and be very nasty.<br /><br /><i>It's a dilemma I can't see an adequate resolution to, not without a change in culture that may not happen for some time.</i><br /><br />This is where I get my Ghandi on: "Be the change you want to see."<br /><br />At the absolute minimum, we need to push for a change to the divorce laws. If you would promote that course of action, you might do much good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-54951877603593888852011-03-11T09:13:51.749+11:002011-03-11T09:13:51.749+11:00Another blogger bin issue Mark. Thanks.Another blogger bin issue Mark. Thanks.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2045831725462957512011-03-11T02:16:51.422+11:002011-03-11T02:16:51.422+11:00Anonymous Reader,
You generally do good credit to...Anonymous Reader,<br /><br />You generally do good credit to your position, however, I'm not convinced by your argument either. <br /><br />You say that the trads support women having choices but not duties, the traditional duty of a woman has always been to have children, and then to raise them correctly. This was never really historically optional but expected. When birth control arrived the trads didn't say "oh goody now we don't have to have kids", instead it was quite the contrary.<br /><br />Women also had the duty to do the best they could to get on with their mate, and to look to get married. A long term single women until relatively recently was usually seen by society as an object of pity, rather than as a liberated example. So trads have always had strong expectations of women. <br /><br />In the situation raised where a married woman might work, this would generally be discussed by the couple prior to childbirth, and generally decided together or else raised clearly prior to marriage. It wasn’t a situation where the women would just decide on her own and the man was expected to go along with it. <br /><br />So how do trads encourage women to take up their responsibilities again? Well we can certainly make a strong push by not holding up individual and personal short term happiness as the highest good, and not see the meaning of life as how much fun and personal life experience you can accumulate. <br /><br />It will ultimately be decided, as Kathy says, by what’s likely to make individual people personally happy and fulfilled, and there's plenty of evidence to show that men and women want to partner up. <br /><br />Alternatively, should we assume that many women don't want to partner up, or else set their standards at unreasonable levels, and begin to widely use of sperm clinics, the people who take this option will still experience declining fertility rates. This is because such women would be unlikely to have several children that way. If you raise a child as a single parent you have to do all the chores yourself, and in this instance there's no alimony, (whatever govt welfare is available I imagine must be less). One kid per fraction of the available feminist fertile women won’t be enough to maintain their numbers. Also there’s also being no guarantee that their kids will want to replicate that style of life. Additionally if you're the kind of person who can't or won't get on with a man you're also probably the type whose likely to be put off by the many practical encumbrances child raising involves. <br /><br />At the same time as many women will be doing this, men will not race to the women’s rescue, because they’ll not want to take up with harridans, and contrary to your view neither would trads encourage them to. There are other desirable traditional social outcomes apart from the mere conception of children, such as leadership by men. The stronger the man is the less he'll feel required to accept any behavior that comes his way from women, and trads support men being strong, not kowtowing to shocking behavior. If men say no, feminist women will have to realistically change their ways to some degree if they want families. <br /><br />Consequently what we’ll see is that some women will change, others will use nonsense arguments such as they're not having children to help the environment, or out of a desire to not raise a child "in such a world". These women will generally lose credibility and other women will increasingly look to family centered attitudes. <br /><br />You also mentioned the black underclass and their single mother rates. With the numerous problems in that community its usually cited as a cautionary example, rather than as a something to be replicated.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-91254101162265937842011-03-10T23:14:16.696+11:002011-03-10T23:14:16.696+11:00"It is the bishops who must ultimately take t..."It is the bishops who must ultimately take the blame for these morally doubtful annulments -"<br /> <br /><br /> You would do well to remember Louise, that you are not an arbiter of the Catholic faith..<br /><br /> Yours is just a personal opinion, nothing more.Kathy Farrellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532126739204105127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-66663713976208999122011-03-10T22:57:59.833+11:002011-03-10T22:57:59.833+11:00"why I should have stuck to my guns and not e..."why I should have stuck to my guns and not engaged with divorcees (or persons with annulments) on this topic."<br /><br /> This is precisely why your opinion should be disregarded, Louise. Annulments are not shameful.. Yet you in your superior pride.. deem it to be otherwise.... It is just your opinion.. nothing else!<br /><br /><br /> My marriage was legitimately annuled by the Church.. Something that you in your obtuseness and obstinacy refuse to accept or acknowledge..<br /><br /> It seems to me that you do not respect the laws of the Church.<br /><br />You are not the official mouthpiece of the Catholic Church.<br /><br /> You are free to go elsewhere if you cannot adhere to the tenets of the Catholic faith. <br /><br /> In the meantime please do not muddy the waters.. with your prideful indulgent sanctimonious claptrap.Kathy Farrellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532126739204105127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-64197265097251606302011-03-10T22:22:27.307+11:002011-03-10T22:22:27.307+11:00Louise,
Thanks for explaining further. I have to ...Louise,<br /><br />Thanks for explaining further. I have to admit I'm torn on this. I do view marriage as a sacrament and therefore understand the logic of the position taken by the Church. <br /><br />However, I struggle with the idea that a young man who married in good faith but is betrayed by his wife must then simply live celibately for the rest of his life, without the opportunity to be a father. <br /><br />It would not be such a looming issue in a culture that was informed by Catholic principles and in which few men would find themselves in such a position.<br /><br />But we do not live in such a culture. <br /><br />It's a dilemma I can't see an adequate resolution to, not without a change in culture that may not happen for some time.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-62704007356910548392011-03-10T21:32:56.384+11:002011-03-10T21:32:56.384+11:00Dale Ahlquist on Chesterton on Divorce:
http://ww...Dale Ahlquist on Chesterton on Divorce:<br /><br />http://www.chesterton.org/wordpress/?page_id=1432<br /><br />"The Superstition of Divorce."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-17828358258205730992011-03-10T21:25:39.140+11:002011-03-10T21:25:39.140+11:00Mark, I'm addressing this to you, because my o...Mark, I'm addressing this to you, because my original remarks were about the very concerning attitude which otherwise traditionally minded Catholics now have towards divorce and remarriage.<br /><br />As I said, "remarriage" (much less "re-partnering") just should not be on the agenda for committed Catholics. Anyone can see why this ought to be the case - because it weakens an already very weak institution.<br /><br />If your wife left you and you decided not to take a stand and remain faithful to her, but decided you wanted to do the very untraditional thing of "remarrying," then as a Catholic, you would not be able to do that in the Church without an annulment.<br /><br />Until recent decades, annulments were - rightly - extremely difficult to get and were given rarely.<br /><br />The Church has relaxed the criteria alarmingly to the point where they now seem to be given out willy-nilly.<br /><br />From a juridical perspective, we can certainly consider the persons with annulments to be Catholics in good standing, but morally, there is reason to be disturbed. It is much like a judge in a civil court handing a sentence which is much too lax. We can lament the decision, without questioning the authority.<br /><br />I put it to you that morally speaking, you really do need to think of your marriage as absolutely permanent, even if your wife ever left you (one hopes she would do no such thing).<br /><br />It is the bishops who must ultimately take the blame for these morally doubtful annulments -they are a scandal and facilitate a disturbing acceptance of divorce amongst Catholics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-4726309841843254402011-03-10T21:12:30.241+11:002011-03-10T21:12:30.241+11:00My point was that this is a combox, Kathy, either ...My point was that this is a combox, Kathy, either deal with the issues that are raised, or leave them alone. I don't mind which you choose, but most of your posts have only served to illustrate exactly those things I've been talking about and why I should have stuck to my guns and not engaged with divorcees (or persons with annulments) on this topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-48148286447078758762011-03-10T19:23:26.944+11:002011-03-10T19:23:26.944+11:00"You finally get around to dealing with the o..."You finally get around to dealing with the objection I initially raised (that I wish Catholics would stop talking about their annulments), "<br /><br /> It matters not, what YOU wish Louise. Seems to me it's all about how YOU feel..<br /><br /> You are not an official representitive of the Catholic Church,here.<br /><br /> And, it is from the church (my spiritual adviser- priest) that I take my counsel, not you..<br /><br /> Nor are you the blog owner for goodness sake.. Lol!<br /><br />You are entitled to your opinions, however, as I am mine. <br /><br /> When you offer up tripe such as all annulments are shameful, then I am compelled to point that this is only in your opinion and it is NOT the OFFICIAL stance taken by the Catholic Church.Kathy Farrellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532126739204105127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-14358252953964955992011-03-10T19:05:09.866+11:002011-03-10T19:05:09.866+11:00Kathy, I'm going to say this only once, "...Kathy, I'm going to say this only once, "you're mean" is not an argument.<br /><br />You finally get around to dealing with the objection I initially raised (that I wish Catholics would stop talking about their annulments), after how long?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-92057516566774804602011-03-10T18:58:00.570+11:002011-03-10T18:58:00.570+11:00it's just that you are not coming across as ve...<i>it's just that you are not coming across as very charitable.</i><br /><br />And? It makes little difference to the argument, which nobody has really addressed. And when I am less polemical in tone on other blogs with this issue, I still get the same responses, so it makes <i>no real difference.</i><br /> <br /><i>Furthermore, where there is a divorce or annulment and there were no children involved, the argument sort of loses its urgency.</i><br /><br />Nonsense. If we were really just a pack of individuals, then yes, it wouldn't matter, but we're not. Every divorce sets a bad example to everyone else and therefore, the cumulative effect hurts other people's kids. <br /><br /><i>I agree with you that divorce is a bad thing, but the root problem is that so many people these days aren't fit for marriage to begin with and so we have this problem with a high divorce rate.</i><br /><br />That may well be the case, but the critical factor in the dramatic increase with divorce was the no-fault divorce law. It is possible that with a change to these laws, coupled with some judicious privileging of marriage-based families by the State, there could be a restoration of marriage. Consider that many children of divorce hate it so much and might therefore work harder in their own marriages, <i>with the right support to help them and a more just system.</i><br /><br /><i>This has nothing to do with feelings (mine or Kathy's or any other divorcee) but, at least I can speak for myself, with the reality of life on the ground.</i><br /><br />Just for clarification - are you suggesting that I am not in touch with the reality of life on the ground? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.<br /><br /><i>Theology is good and I'm not disagreeing or saying it should be watered down to appease feelings</i><br /><br />Except that, no matter how "nicely" I behave, when it comes to this or any other moral issue whatever, I am accused of being judgmental. Not that I care about others' opinions of me, but charges of judgementalism are often merely another way of stifling debate. I have no time for it any more.<br /><br /><i>just that you are making grand assumptions here, such as that it never occurred to me that someone might need to hear the unvarnished truth about something.</i><br /><br />I was asking whether it never occurred to you to look at things from the perspective of someone other than a divorcee, b/c I was challenging the assumptions you seemed to have made. I mean, I can see how a divorcee wouldn't care for my tone or argument, but a child of divorce might be positively delighted.<br /><br /><i>Again, it all comes across as a bit sanctimonious.</i><br /><br />I really don't care any more. It makes no difference how carefully I phrase anything - people will always take things badly and respond accordingly.<br /><br />Sometimes I am combative, sometimes I'm not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-4994114524820911132011-03-10T17:50:52.335+11:002011-03-10T17:50:52.335+11:00I am sorry Louise, Thag is right it's not abo...I am sorry Louise, Thag is right it's not about my feelings or anyone else's. <br /><br />If someone asks me a question I will answer it honestly. If someone accuses me of something that is untrue I will set the record straight.. Simple as that.<br /><br /> I do not believe in divorce it is wrong..I have said as much.I believe in the sanctity of marriage. It is obvious that you did NOT read(or maybe understand) what I said.<br /><br />I will not however shy away from the fact that my marriage was annulled and for a very good reason, not as you imply, because the rules have become lax.<br /><br /> I am not going to skulk away quietly in shame.. I have done nothing wrong.. <br /><br />"And I really hate it when my co-religionists talk about their annulments. Please do us all a favour and be quiet. Annulments are a shameful thing and ought to be kept private. Really."<br /><br /><br />Nonsense. People will think that I have something to hide. Which is why I have always been open about my situation. Annulments (genuine ones) are not shameful, they are a sad and unfortunate occurance.<br /><br /> As one poster on Catholic forum said.<br /><br /><br />An annulment can not be shameful any more that an orange is shameful. An annulment is an objective evaluation of the validity of vows taken by both sides in a marriage covenant. If one entered the marriage fraudulently or was not a Catholic and did not understand the indissoluable nature of Catholic marriage but the other entered the marriage in good faith, it is still null and void. There is no shame in this for the spouse who entered this contract in good faith. <br /><br />I did indeed enter my marriage in good faith.. <br /><br /> It's not about feelings here, as I said earlier.. It's about truth.. and it's about you twisting the facts to suit your own agenda..<br /><br /> You need to get off your high horse, Louise, because you DO come across as rather sanctimonious, and people will just switch off to your message.<br /><br />In any event you are preaching to the choir, here.Kathy Farrellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532126739204105127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-66552252583528415052011-03-10T15:46:21.553+11:002011-03-10T15:46:21.553+11:00Anonymous Reader,
Having posted here a few times ...Anonymous Reader,<br /><br />Having posted here a few times you should know that there are problems with blogger and some posts are automatically sent to the spam bin after posting. Mark will put them back up when he gets on.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-62866126610818996312011-03-10T15:14:48.035+11:002011-03-10T15:14:48.035+11:00Well, well, well.
It appears that comments I am ...Well, well, well. <br /><br />It appears that comments I am making, that appear here at the time of posting, are now disappearing. It appears that posting disagreement here results in postings being deleted.<br /><br />Mark Richardson, are you doing that?Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-75374032895718893752011-03-10T14:09:02.502+11:002011-03-10T14:09:02.502+11:00Louise, I do understand what you're saying, it...Louise, I do understand what you're saying, it's just that you are not coming across as very charitable. Furthermore, where there is a divorce or annulment and there were no children involved, the argument sort of loses its urgency. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I agree with you that divorce is a bad thing, but the root problem is that so many people these days aren't fit for marriage to begin with and so we have this problem with a high divorce rate. <br /><br />This has nothing to do with feelings (mine or Kathy's or any other divorcee) but, at least I can speak for myself, with the reality of life on the ground. It's a mess. Theology is good and I'm not disagreeing or saying it should be watered down to appease feelings (those who know me probably know I'm hardly one to be concerned with feelings in that sense), just that you are making grand assumptions here, such as that it never occurred to me that someone might need to hear the unvarnished truth about something. Again, it all comes across as a bit sanctimonious. Of course these things occurred to me - there's plenty of things just such as this that attracted ME to the Catholic church, so yeah, I get that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com