Right Wing Discussion Thread XIX

[LiberNovusAmericae]

A couple that constantly fights but are forced to be together probably isn't good for childhood development either.

[Hakons]

A couple that constantly fights but are forced to be together probably isn't good for childhood development either.

A childhood with half the parental time, resources, and income; a childhood without an absent father or a removed mother; a childhood without the example of husband and wife, is decidedly worse for childhood development. What I don't understand is that the supporters of divorce seem to think of every negative scenario possible within marriage, and ignore the scenario that divorce produces on a mind-numbing scale in American society.

[Bienenhalde]

The Renaissance wasn't a decline in sincere Christianity, some of our best stuff comes from that era.

Some people just want something to blame for the things they don't like in the present. But I don't think people in the Middle Ages were any more holy than in the Renaissance.

The Renaissance saw the beginning of colonization of the Americas, the rise of the transantlantic slave trade, and more generally racist views towards non-European peoples. That seems like a pretty big problem to me. And that is to say nothing of the notorious corruption of the Renaissance papacy and the corrupt banking families like the Medicis.

[United Muscovite Nations]

A couple that constantly fights but are forced to be together probably isn't good for childhood development either.

A childhood with half the parental time, resources, and income; a childhood without an absent father or a removed mother; a childhood without the example of husband and wife, is decidedly worse for childhood development. What I don't understand is that the supporters of divorce seem to think of every negative scenario possible within marriage, and ignore the scenario that divorce produces on a mind-numbing scale in American society.

Even if you take the Biblical standard for divorce, the one laid out explicitly by Christ, it would still allow 59% of divorces according to the graph you provided.

[Fahran]

Have you seen fictional English literature from the 17th and 18th centuries? English people can be incredibly emotional and sentimental.

I was going to say. There's a lot of sentimentality in the ballads and cycles even before we begin discussing the Romantics. A heart-felt reading of Keats is usually more than enough to make me feel a little weepy given how ponderous, weighty, and beautiful the words become when spoken.

[Fahran]

I'm starting to think we all owe Alex Jones an apology for mocking him for claiming the elite were a bunch of pedophilic vampires.

Although considering he hasn't called out one of the pedophiles because said pedophile supports his show, maybe not.

Alex Jones was right about the elites being pedophilic vampires. That's also why half of them eat steak wrong. If they ever ate it right, it might go straight through their hearts. :^)

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

The Renaissance wasn't a decline in sincere Christianity, some of our best stuff comes from that era.

Some people just want something to blame for the things they don't like in the present. But I don't think people in the Middle Ages were any more holy than in the Renaissance.

The Renaissance saw the beginning of colonization of the Americas, the rise of the transantlantic slave trade, and more generally racist views towards non-European peoples. That seems like a pretty big problem to me. And that is to say nothing of the notorious corruption of the Renaissance papacy and the corrupt banking families like the Medicis.

In regards to the Papacy, I really don't understand why you'd single the Renaissance out in particular as a time of great corruption. Sure, there were plenty of corrupt popes during this period of time (Alexander VI being the most prominent example), but nothing out of the norm.

Especially in contrast to the Papacy during the Middle Ages, which had popes sleeping with other men's wives and putting their predecessors' cadavers on trial for heresy. The Renaissance Papacy was pretty tame by comparison.

And at any rate, most of the greatest cultural achievements of the Papacy (like Saint Peter's Basilica) come from the Renaissance.

[Fahran]

Take this shit to the fucking CDT where it belongs.

It's focused on divorce, which is an issue under the purview of right wing discussion. Catholicism was brought up, in this case, because some people like to swipe at the Church whenever Catholics open their mouths here.

Sixty percent of divorces had infidelity cited as the rationale behind the divorce. Those weren't no-fault divorces. In total, twenty to forty percent of divorces likely result from infidelity and close to sixty percent of married men are estimated to cheat on their wives - I'll post the stat on women when I find it. We can do away with no-fault divorce, and I definitely believe we should seek to minimize the occurrence of divorce, but we have to do something about the rampant infidelity as well. It's not just to expect people to stay with unfaithful partners.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

It's focused on divorce, which is an issue under the purview of right wing discussion. Catholicism was brought up, in this case, because some people like to swipe at the Church whenever Catholics open their mouths here.

Sixty percent of divorces had infidelity cited as the rationale behind the divorce. Those weren't no-fault divorces. In total, twenty to forty percent of divorces likely result from infidelity and close to sixty percent of married men are estimated to cheat on their wives - I'll post the stat on women when I find it. We can do away with no-fault divorce, and I definitely believe we should seek to minimize the occurrence of divorce, but we have to do something about the rampant infidelity as well. It's not just to expect people to stay with unfaithful partners.

We've gotten soft as a society.

We should bring back public shaming. Tar and feather the adulterers and put them in the pillory for a few days. Make a public spectacle out of it, and sell rotten tomatoes that passersby can chuck at the sinners.

Peer pressure and public humiliation are excellent means of discouraging bad behaviour.

[Nap the Magnificent]

Take this shit to the fucking CDT where it belongs.

It's focused on divorce, which is an issue under the purview of right wing discussion. Catholicism was brought up, in this case, because some people like to swipe at the Church whenever Catholics open their mouths here.

It stopped being just about that when it became Catholic theology bumping text walls.

---

No fault divorce is quite shit but a lot of marriages still are ended for legitimate reasons such as a result of infidelity, domestic abuse, or spousal abandonment. All of these are valid reasons for divorce but the way to solve them isn't by cracking down on divorce to the point when you are harming people as a result.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's focused on divorce, which is an issue under the purview of right wing discussion. Catholicism was brought up, in this case, because some people like to swipe at the Church whenever Catholics open their mouths here.

It stopped being just about that when it became Catholic theology bumping text walls.

---

No fault divorce is quite shit but a lot of marriages still are ended for legitimate reasons such as a result of infidelity, domestic abuse, or spousal abandonment. All of these are valid reasons for divorce but the way to solve them isn't by cracking down on divorce to the point when you are harming people as a result.

^This. There is definitely an intersection of theology and policy, but at the end of the day our decisions on public policy must be motivated by philosophical conceptions of justice (fairness) not on ideological purity.

[The East Marches II]

It's focused on divorce, which is an issue under the purview of right wing discussion. Catholicism was brought up, in this case, because some people like to swipe at the Church whenever Catholics open their mouths here.

Sixty percent of divorces had infidelity cited as the rationale behind the divorce. Those weren't no-fault divorces. In total, twenty to forty percent of divorces likely result from infidelity and close to sixty percent of married men are estimated to cheat on their wives - I'll post the stat on women when I find it. We can do away with no-fault divorce, and I definitely believe we should seek to minimize the occurrence of divorce, but we have to do something about the rampant infidelity as well. It's not just to expect people to stay with unfaithful partners.

It seems Questers is right again!

[The Alma Mater]

Take this shit to the fucking CDT where it belongs.

It's focused on divorce, which is an issue under the purview of right wing discussion. Catholicism was brought up, in this case, because some people like to swipe at the Church whenever Catholics open their mouths here.

But why is Catholicism relevant at all when talking about legal marriage ? It is a state-sanctioned contract, open to people of all (non)religions , according to the rules of the state. Not those of the Pope, Ayatollah, Grand Mufti, Tiger King or whatever.

[Hakons]

It's focused on divorce, which is an issue under the purview of right wing discussion. Catholicism was brought up, in this case, because some people like to swipe at the Church whenever Catholics open their mouths here.

It stopped being just about that when it became Catholic theology bumping text walls.

It's focused on divorce, which is an issue under the purview of right wing discussion. Catholicism was brought up, in this case, because some people like to swipe at the Church whenever Catholics open their mouths here.

But why is Catholicism relevant at all when talking about legal marriage ? It is a state-sanctioned contract, open to people of all (non)religions , according to the rules of the state. Not those of the Pope, Ayatollah, Grand Mufti, Tiger King or whatever.

My argument didn't include Catholicism. My argument used statistics and the claimed consequences of divorce. I didn't say "Divorce should be illegal because the Church said so." I agree with that, but I didn't argue that in this case. If you read what I actually said, instead of seeing a religious person speaking and immediately proclaiming theocracy, you might have noticed that. Han is the one that randomly sniped against the Catholic hierarchy. Why you guys then hound religious people for daring to speak when insulted is beyond reason.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also no-fault divorce should be allowed, even if it should be frowned upon. I agree the results are often terrible, but it is still unfair to legally require two people who do not want to be in a relationship together to remain in a relationship.

[Hakons]

What's most annoying about NSG is when people blatantly ignore the sequence of events in the conversation. Everything is publicly available and recorded. There is no excuse.

[Nap the Magnificent]

It stopped being just about that when it became Catholic theology bumping text walls.

But why is Catholicism relevant at all when talking about legal marriage ? It is a state-sanctioned contract, open to people of all (non)religions , according to the rules of the state. Not those of the Pope, Ayatollah, Grand Mufti, Tiger King or whatever.

My argument didn't include Catholicism. My argument used statistics and the claimed consequences of divorce. I didn't say "Divorce should be illegal because the Church said so." I agree with that, but I didn't argue that in this case. If you read what I actually said, instead of seeing a religious person speaking and immediately proclaiming theocracy, you might have noticed that. Han is the one that randomly sniped against the Catholic hierarchy. Why you guys then hound religious people for daring to speak when insulted is beyond reason.

It wasn't just you. I also don't really give two shits if Han did that.

[Hakons]

My argument didn't include Catholicism. My argument used statistics and the claimed consequences of divorce. I didn't say "Divorce should be illegal because the Church said so." I agree with that, but I didn't argue that in this case. If you read what I actually said, instead of seeing a religious person speaking and immediately proclaiming theocracy, you might have noticed that. Han is the one that randomly sniped against the Catholic hierarchy. Why you guys then hound religious people for daring to speak when insulted is beyond reason.

It wasn't just you. I also don't really give two shits if Han did that.

So the issue that you're presenting is that stupid religious people talk back when spoken to and that they speak too many words?

[The Alma Mater]

It stopped being just about that when it became Catholic theology bumping text walls.

But why is Catholicism relevant at all when talking about legal marriage ? It is a state-sanctioned contract, open to people of all (non)religions , according to the rules of the state. Not those of the Pope, Ayatollah, Grand Mufti, Tiger King or whatever.

My argument didn't include Catholicism. My argument used statistics and the claimed consequences of divorce. I didn't say "Divorce should be illegal because the Church said so." I agree with that, but I didn't argue that in this case. If you read what I actually said, instead of seeing a religious person speaking and immediately proclaiming theocracy, you might have noticed that. Han is the one that randomly sniped against the Catholic hierarchy. Why you guys then hound religious people for daring to speak when insulted is beyond reason.

Are your arguments based on Catholic or Right wing principles ?
Because those are not the same. They in fact are incompatible.

[United Muscovite Nations]

When the only people calling for the legal abolishing of no-fault divorce are the hardline Catholics who openly have said they want religion involved in government policy decisions, it cannot be said to not be a religiously neutral argument, but one that is clearly motivated by notions of theological purity.

I agree that no-fault divorce is morally wrong, but legally abolishing it is a horrendous idea that is plainly unfair to many people. Forcing people to remain in a marriage with someone they do not wish to be married to (since marriage comes with legal, social, and personal responsibilities) is plainly wrong, and no amount of hardship on their children resulting from the divorce can change that.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Also no-fault divorce should be allowed, even if it should be frowned upon. I agree the results are often terrible, but it is still unfair to legally require two people who do not want to be in a relationship together to remain in a relationship.

National stability takes precedence over fairness.

Most divorce rates in the West are in the 40-50% range. That's too high, and causes far too much societal disorder.

Oaths and vows need to be taken seriously; especially marital ones.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also no-fault divorce should be allowed, even if it should be frowned upon. I agree the results are often terrible, but it is still unfair to legally require two people who do not want to be in a relationship together to remain in a relationship.

National stability takes precedence over fairness.

Most divorce rates in the West are in the 40-50% range. That's too high, and causes far too much societal disorder.

Oaths and vows need to be taken seriously; especially marital ones.

Abolishing no-fault divorce won't do anything to reduce that, as the statistics posted earlier will show.

National stability is an element of fairness, but fairness and justice are the ultimate responsibilities of government which may only be suspended in states of emergency or exception when the existence of the state itself is threatened.

[Hakons]

My argument didn't include Catholicism. My argument used statistics and the claimed consequences of divorce. I didn't say "Divorce should be illegal because the Church said so." I agree with that, but I didn't argue that in this case. If you read what I actually said, instead of seeing a religious person speaking and immediately proclaiming theocracy, you might have noticed that. Han is the one that randomly sniped against the Catholic hierarchy. Why you guys then hound religious people for daring to speak when insulted is beyond reason.

Are your arguments based on Catholic or Right wing principles ?
Because those are not the same. They in fact are incompatible.

You can read what I posted. It's publicly available and free to access. Then, once informed on what I actually said, you can point out where I'm just too Catholic for your comfort zone apparently.

There's a lot of times that's just not true.

Marriage is self-sacrifice. Divorcing for frivolous reasons and harming the lives of children isn't a desirable outcome. Getting a divorce doesn't exactly make you more happy, and children are seriously screwed up by it, as shown in hard statistics for graduation and crime rates. A no fault divorce shouldn't be a legal option. It concretely causes irreparable harm by breaking apart the family unit.

Forcing people to be a part of abusive relationships because they can't legally prove they're being abused or cheated on is going to result in worse.

It's ironic that the people making Catholic policies on marriage are old men who are celibate.

Abuse is a fault. Abusive husbands break the law and should be imprisoned under the law.

Your marital status doesn't discredit your position on marriage. This is a silly ad hominem. They don't make policy either, it is made by the Magisterium, the collective teaching authority of the Church.

Divorce should be frowned on but not illegal. Adultery though should be illegal because it's a breaking of society's most valuable contract.

Regardless of what kind of divorce should be illegal, I think we all can agree divorce should be rarer then it presently is. Enormously high divorce rates are terrible for society, and they grossly affect our population. High divorce rates aren't normal and aren't good.

Proving abuse can be difficult at times, especially when that abuse does not leave bruises or scars (such as psychological abuse). Lots of it will come down to "he said she said," or vice versa where the woman is the perpetrator.

When the elite are making policies from their ivory towers, based on unprovable supernatural claims no less, that is a problem. The Magisterium seems to be composed of the popes and bishops, who are all celibate.

Even if proving abuse as a justification for divorce was lowered to merely lodging a complaint to the judicial system, that would vastly reduce divorce. The majority of divorce is due to spouses giving up on their marital duties and agreeing to part ways. From the National Institute of Health:

Reason for divorce	                Individuals 
Lack of commitment                      75.0%	
Infidelity or extramarital affairs      59.6	
Too much conflict and arguing	        57.7	
Getting married too young	        45.1
Financial problems            	        36.7	
Substance abuse                	        34.6	
Domestic violence                       23.5	
Health problems                	        18.2	
Lack of support from family       	17.3	
Religious differences           	13.3	
Little or no premarital education      	13.3

When you support no fault divorce, you support the high divorce rate. You support the staggering number of broken families and ruined childhood perceptions. There are many, many unnecessary divorces. We can't simply throw up our hands and declare our divorce rates to be natural. They're not natural. They're historically unprecedented. Your main argument is that no fault divorce saves spouses in abuse situations, but domestic abuse has neither stopped, nor is divorce a desirable remedy. We don't fix one issue with a response that is culturally disastrous, both on society at large, and in thousands upon thousands of ruined families.

Comments about the Church are transitory to the discussion. They appear to be merely serving an outlet for ad hominem attack on the Catholic hierarchy, instead of addressing the claims and evidence presented to you. I will once again reiterate that bishops don't make policy from ivory towers. That's ludicrous. Bishops propagate the Magisterium, the collective authoritative teaching of the Church, and don't send out policy proposals like a liberal democracy. A priest in the underground Church in China would tell you the marital teaching of the Church just as much as the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in the Vatican. A Zambian catholic girl in gradeschool catechism would tell you the immorality of divorce. There's no ivory towers, no bias from celibacy. It's Catholic teaching espoused by God, propagated by the clergy, and defended by the laity.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

National stability takes precedence over fairness.

Most divorce rates in the West are in the 40-50% range. That's too high, and causes far too much societal disorder.

Oaths and vows need to be taken seriously; especially marital ones.

Abolishing no-fault divorce won't do anything to reduce that, as the statistics posted earlier will show.

National stability is an element of fairness, but fairness and justice are the ultimate responsibilities of government which may only be suspended in states of emergency or exception when the existence of the state itself is threatened.

It will help to reduce the number of divorces to some degree, as those same statistics showed that not all divorces occur as a result of infidelity, abuse or neglect.

Naturally, it needs to be coupled with stronger disincentives for adultery (like public shaming) and more generic shifts in societal attitudes about marriage in order for genuine success in reducing the divorce rate to be achieved.

As for national stability, it doesn't always go hand-in-hand with fairness and justice. You're enamoured with more than enough authoritarian states (both past and present) to know this. Sometimes a government just has to do what it has to do.

[Nap the Magnificent]

It wasn't just you. I also don't really give two shits if Han did that.

So the issue that you're presenting is that stupid religious people talk back when spoken to and that they speak too many words?

You're talking to an Orthodox Christian but okay.