So, what is a real marriage?

[Rose74]

Another thread got me thinking. Which is the real marriage? The one entered into by two young, dumb people “in love”, which results in no children and a quick divorce, or the one entered into later by two mature people who have the same goals/ideas about marriage/consider it seriously and results in children?

My personal opinion is that all marriages like the first should be declared null in favor of the second marriage.

 

[JimG]

Another thread got me thinking. Which is the real marriage? The one entered into by two young, dumb people “in love”, which results in no children and a quick divorce, or the one entered into later by two mature people who have the same goals/ideas about marriage/consider it seriously and results in children?

My personal opinion is that all marriages like the first should be declared null in favor of the second marriage.

I like the idea of two mature people who have similar goals, consider marriage seriously (by which I mean that they know that it lasts a lifetime) and are open to children. But there’s no innate reason why young people can’t be those two mature people. Besides, marrying young means they grow together as a couple, not being set in their ways.

 

[1ke]

The first marriage is the real marriage, as in the valid marriage, unless there was an impediment. Being young and in love does not equate to nullity.

 

[Kelfa28]

Marriage lasts a lifetime. Period

Why not skip the semantics and just BE the two mature people entering into the first marriage? The End.

There is no second marriage.

This is my gripe with people’s view point on marriage. Everyone still thinks that divorce is perfectly fine…and that, hey…we can just get an annulment if it doesn’t work out.

That should NEVER cross a couple’s mind. Separation is one thing…divorce is something entirely different.

If a priest has any inclination that a couple isn’t ready for marriage…he shouldn’t feel obligated to marry them.
Sadly…I think many priests fail to take on uncomfortable confrontations.

The annulments shouldn’t be made easier to get…marriage in the first place should be harder to get.
No one should ever go into a marriage bypassing the “till death” vow. You take your vows and you mean them.

 

[Rose74]

I like the idea of two mature people who have similar goals, consider marriage seriously (by which I mean that they know that it lasts a lifetime) and are open to children. But there’s no innate reason why young people can’t be those two mature people. Besides, marrying young means they grow together as a couple, not being set in their ways.

Some young people are mature enough to handle marriage. However, many people today don’t really mature until their mid to late twenties. These “starter marriages” are far too common. One mistake and that’s it- you’re bound to some dude for life? Almost better for people to get married civilly if this is the result.

 

[Kelfa28]

Some young people are mature enough to handle marriage. However, many people today don’t really mature until their mid to late twenties. These “starter marriages” are far too common. One mistake and that’s it- you’re bound to some dude for life? Almost better for people to get married civilly if this is the result.

Can you believe we’ve evolved into terminology like “starter marriage”

Kind of like the starter house…no?

Grrrr…it drives me nuts when all everyone wants is the fairy tale engagement story followed by the crazy extravagant wedding that costs $20,000 and a marriage that doesn’t last long enough to pay it off.

“Yeah, I was young and dumb…I can just move on to the right spouse this time”

 

[1ke]

Some young people are mature enough to handle marriage. However, many people today don’t really mature until their mid to late twenties.

The requirements for marriage are pretty minimal. Marriage is a natural right. The age for marriage in the Catholic Church is 14 for girls and 16 for boys. It is not rocket science.

These “starter marriages” are far too common.

Not because the marriage is actually invalid, but because the people involved walk away.

One mistake and that’s it- you’re bound to some dude for life?

Yes

Almost better for people to get married civilly if this is the result.

Sin is never better.

The couple is called to bear with each other’s faults and to honor their vows or to refrain from vows in the first place. Once they make the vows, they are to live up to them.

 

[PatriceA]

Another thread got me thinking. Which is the real marriage? The one entered into by two young, dumb people “in love”, which results in no children and a quick divorce, or the one entered into later by two mature people who have the same goals/ideas about marriage/consider it seriously and results in children?

My personal opinion is that all marriages like the first should be declared null in favor of the second marriage.

I want to clarify for you that a marriage doesn’t have to result in children for it to be “real”. We are called as Catholics to be “open to life” which may or may not result in children. Infertility does not negate a “real” marriage. Older people can be just as dumb as young people as well. Maturity doesn’t always correspond with a biological age.

 

[jmcrae]

Another thread got me thinking. Which is the real marriage? The one entered into by two young, dumb people “in love”, which results in no children and a quick divorce, or the one entered into later by two mature people who have the same goals/ideas about marriage/consider it seriously and results in children?

My personal opinion is that all marriages like the first should be declared null in favor of the second marriage.

It doesn’t matter how compatible or mature you think you are; it is always a bad idea to marry someone who has been married before. In the Catholic Church it is permitted if there has been a Declaration of Nullity, but it is still a bad idea, because that first marriage will always be there, and you will be forever married to both of them, since they are and always will be one flesh, indivisible.

My heart goes out to those who find themselves in a bad marriage and need to get divorced, but no, sorry, you don’t get a do-over. Real life doesn’t come with an “undo” button - the choices we make stay made forever, and so do the consequences, for good or for ill.

That’s why we need to teach our children well, and make sure they know how to choose good spouses for themselves the first time around. No one should say, “Well, if it doesn’t work out, they can always get divorced and do better the second time around.”

 

[jmcrae]

No one should ever go into a marriage bypassing the “till death” vow. You take your vows and you mean them.

And the “in sickness” vow and the “for worse” vow.

If there is abuse, then the Church allows and even encourages separation, but there is no option to divorce and remarry even in that situation.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Some young people are mature enough to handle marriage. However, many people today don’t really mature until their mid to late twenties. These “starter marriages” are far too common. One mistake and that’s it- you’re bound to some dude for life? Almost better for people to get married civilly if this is the result.

…or chick.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

It doesn’t matter how compatible or mature you think you are; it is always a bad idea to marry someone who has been married before. In the Catholic Church it is permitted if there has been a Declaration of Nullity, but it is still a bad idea, because that first marriage will always be there, and you will be forever married to both of them, since they are and always will be one flesh, indivisible.

If there is a Declaration of Nullity for the first marriage, it means the marriage was never there, thus you are not married to that first person.

Like Patrice mentioned, children or lack of children does not make a marriage more valid or less valid. If two people marry and there are no impediments (and the form is correct etc), they are married to each other forever whether they are 19 or 45. It doesn’t matter if soon after they decide they don’t want to be married.

I think it is interesting how people pull the immature card for marriages in their early 20’s, but would acknowledge that if someone signs a legal contract at that age it is binding. Most people would agree that you can’t say, ‘But I signed that contract when I was 22, I was so immature, it should not be considered valid and I shouldn’t have to adhere to it.’

 

[BettyBoop416]

The requirements for marriage are pretty minimal. Marriage is a natural right. The age for marriage in the Catholic Church is 14 for girls and 16 for boys. It is not rocket science.

While I do not doubt it when you say these are the minimum ages for marriage according to the Church, to say that 14 and 16 year olds are mature enough for marriage simply defies logic.

 

[BettyBoop416]

It doesn’t matter how compatible or mature you think you are; it is always a bad idea to marry someone who has been married before. In the Catholic Church it is permitted if there has been a Declaration of Nullity, but it is still a bad idea, because that first marriage will always be there, and you will be forever married to both of them, since they are and always will be one flesh, indivisible.

I’ve always thought that a degree of nullity established the fact that a marriage never took place. If that is, in fact, the case, there isn’t a first marriage to “always be there.” And you won’t be “forever married to both of them” because you were never married to the first one.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I’ve always thought that a degree of nullity established the fact that a marriage never took place. If that is, in fact, the case, there isn’t a first marriage to “always be there.” And you won’t be “forever married to both of them” because you were never married to the first one.

Saying “it never took place” is the unfortunate way someone described once it and it took hold. Whether it was verbal shorthand or someone was trying to explain it another way, I don’t know but it isn’t accurate.

 

[Kelfa28]

While I do not doubt it when you say these are the minimum ages for marriage according to the Church, to say that 14 and 16 year olds are mature enough for marriage simply defies logic.

It does defy logic…for most westernized nations.

However, the Catholic Church exists and gives sacramental marriages to the rest of the world.
In some countries…this is a regular practice.
Therefore it is seen as perfectly normal and logical.

 

[BettyBoop416]

It does defy logic…for most westernized nations.

However, the Catholic Church exists and gives sacramental marriages to the rest of the world.
In some countries…this is a regular practice.
Therefore it is seen as perfectly normal and logical.

Well, since my personal frame of reference is the Western world, I guess my Western bias was showing. Mea culpa.

 

[Kelfa28]

Well, since my personal frame of reference is the Western world, I guess my Western bias was showing. Mea culpa.

Don’t worry…I had quoted your reply to initially agree with you…then I stopped and thought about it for a second.

I had a small a-ha moment.

 

[Robertanthony]

It does defy logic…for most westernized nations.

However, the Catholic Church exists and gives sacramental marriages to the rest of the world.
**In some countries…this is a regular practice.**Therefore it is seen as perfectly normal and logical.

Which countries? You can’t buy alcohol when you’re 14 but can make a commitment that lasts a life-time? Makes sense.

 

[Joy2day]

It does defy logic…for most westernized nations.

However, the Catholic Church exists and gives sacramental marriages to the rest of the world.
In some countries…this is a regular practice.
Therefore it is seen as perfectly normal and logical.

It is ridiculous! Totally ridiculous to let someone 14 or 16 get married & then say they’re in it for life! Maybe the priest would turn up to the weddin even g but if it were my child i would not. Even priests who sign up for the seminary at 14 can leave years later & get married - they are not bound for life.