The Purpose of Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SextusEmpiricus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SextusEmpiricus

Guest
Today’s decision in US v Windsor provoked this question: Just what, exactly, is the purpose of marriage?

If it is a civil right, then it has the potential to include many other types of relationships as well. I do not think we are headed down the slippery slope just yet, but I do not see how the US can deny polyamorous marriages, or even adult incest marriages, IF marriage is defined as a constitutional right/privilege.
 
Today’s decision in US v Windsor provoked this question: Just what, exactly, is the purpose of marriage?.
Through out time, history, and cultures there have been many purposes or motivstions for marriage. Ensure the oaternity of a child, love, social status, protection, and more. Legal marriage allows one to more easily delagate some one for a number of purposes (property inheritance, medical benefits, fifth ammendment protections, tax benefits, and more). I conjecture you are more concerned with the “Sacrement of Marriage” or religious marriage. While there is dome overlap of concerns legal and religious marriage are not quite the same.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
 
Through out time, history, and cultures there have been many purposes or motivstions for marriage. Ensure the oaternity of a child, love, social status, protection, and more. Legal marriage allows one to more easily delagate some one for a number of purposes (property inheritance, medical benefits, fifth ammendment protections, tax benefits, and more). I conjecture you are more concerned with the “Sacrement of Marriage” or religious marriage. While there is dome overlap of concerns legal and religious marriage are not quite the same.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
No, not more (or less) concerned about religious marriage, though I think there is an obvious religious element.

I am interested in the constitutional right to marry, and whether it still serves its intended purpose in American society, whatever that purpose is or was.
 
I am interested in the constitutional right to marry, and whether it still serves its intended purpose in American society, whatever that purpose is or was.
Marriage isn’t mentioned in the Constitution (I may have missed it, correct me if I am wrong) so it may be considered an unenumerated right. Though there has been action in the past at a federal level to restrict some conditions or to invalidate/revoke conditions that have been applied at a state level.

Some states have ammended their state constitutions to mention marriage.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my Mobile device.
 
Today’s decision in US v Windsor provoked this question: Just what, exactly, is the purpose of marriage?

If it is a civil right, then it has the potential to include many other types of relationships as well. I do not think we are headed down the slippery slope just yet, but I do not see how the US can deny polyamorous marriages, or even adult incest marriages, IF marriage is defined as a constitutional right/privilege.
Excellent, excellent point.

If we roll back to even the most advanced forms of civilization that history has brought forth, nothing of what they had to offer is even barely comparable with Holy Matrimony.

And indeed we found all sorts of unions. It is also the merit of the Church if many of those unions are now considered to be not just morally wrong, but even against the law of the land.

From the standpoint of reason alone, we may want to re-read what the philosopher Thomas Aquinas had to write on the topic. It is very clear from the standpoint of reason - meaning, not from the standpoint of faith - that Holy Matrimony as presented by orthodox apostolic Christian faith is the highest fulfillment of the natural union between male and female, and that all other sorts of unions that can be loosely termed “marriage” fall way short of this, and ultimately contribute only to making the people and the society more miserable.

Don’t say no, just look at the facts and figures first, learn about the history. There’s so much nonsense talk nowadays about women’s right, but nobody really recalls who was the promoter of women’s rights in the age of concubinage and prostitution. Nobody remembers who said: “there is neither man nor woman, neither free man nor slave, but all are one in Christ”, who is God - therefore making everyone of equal dignity, and that dignity being that of children of God. Nobody remembers who defended the dignity of virgins, who defended the values of modesty and chastity, who defended the dignity of the wife, of the mother, of the widow. This is because there is a keen ignorance of the history of our world. We only learn the basics, but the important details are overlooked. Oftentimes, a partial image is presented by those historians that have an agenda under their coat. Study the situation of women and how Christianity changed it. Learn about the great women saints of the Chuch, some of which are even honored as Doctors of the Church and studied all over the world by thousands of people. Learn about how the Church honored at once the figure of woman, virgin, mother, and spouse in Our Lady, Mary mother of Jesus. Learn how ever since two thousand years ago the Church reminded husbands to love their wives just as Christ loves the Church, His bride.

This nonsense that we are experiencing is the slow-moving collapse of the values of society. As God is removed from the picture, so are all values. But when we remove God from the picture, as a wise man once said, “we do not worship nothing: we worship anything”. Or, rather, we become our own gods. Or we delude ourselves that way, at least. Pride, vanity, and lust - spotted as the three great problems of the human being since two thousand years ago - become the new values of society. Their fruits: relativism and hedonism. To them, the Church has opposed and still opposes poverty, chastity, and obedience. Poverty in spirit, which is not found in absence of money but in absence of attachment to worldly riches. Chastity, which is not the suppression of our sexuality but the achievement of true balance and self-mastery in a truly fulfilling way. Obedience, which is not blindly following without understanding, but listening carefully to others and humbly following that which leads us to forget ourselves and focus on helping those who are more in need than us, trusting that others shall do the same for us. This is the meaning of living in a community.
 
Marriage isn’t mentioned in the Constitution (I may have missed it, correct me if I am wrong) so it may be considered an unenumerated right. Though there has been action in the past at a federal level to restrict some conditions or to invalidate/revoke conditions that have been applied at a state level.

Some states have ammended their state constitutions to mention marriage.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my Mobile device.
The Courts have certainly recognized marriage as a fundamental right in the US, though I admit I am stretching the conclusions of Windsor too far.

Still, the majority opinion in Windsor holds DOMA to be unconstitutional because, among other things, it disparages and injures same-sex couples. If this is the standard, then what is to prevent this right from being extended to polyamorous marriages? Let us pretend that Charlie Sheen is interested in marrying his girlfriends – why deny them that right? It seems to me that the same arguments in favor of SSM hold true, at the very least, for polyamorous marriage, and possibly extend to other relationships as well.
 
Excellent, excellent point.

If we roll back to even the most advanced forms of civilization that history has brought forth, nothing of what they had to offer is even barely comparable with Holy Matrimony.

And indeed we found all sorts of unions. It is also the merit of the Church if many of those unions are now considered to be not just morally wrong, but even against the law of the land.

From the standpoint of reason alone, we may want to re-read what the philosopher Thomas Aquinas had to write on the topic. It is very clear from the standpoint of reason - meaning, not from the standpoint of faith - that Holy Matrimony as presented by orthodox apostolic Christian faith is the highest fulfillment of the natural union between male and female, and that all other sorts of unions that can be loosely termed “marriage” fall way short of this, and ultimately contribute only to making the people and the society more miserable.

Don’t say no, just look at the facts and figures first, learn about the history. There’s so much nonsense talk nowadays about women’s right, but nobody really recalls who was the promoter of women’s rights in the age of concubinage and prostitution. Nobody remembers who said: “there is neither man nor woman, neither free man nor slave, but all are one in Christ”, who is God - therefore making everyone of equal dignity, and that dignity being that of children of God. Nobody remembers who defended the dignity of virgins, who defended the values of modesty and chastity, who defended the dignity of the wife, of the mother, of the widow. This is because there is a keen ignorance of the history of our world. We only learn the basics, but the important details are overlooked. Oftentimes, a partial image is presented by those historians that have an agenda under their coat. Study the situation of women and how Christianity changed it. Learn about the great women saints of the Chuch, some of which are even honored as Doctors of the Church and studied all over the world by thousands of people. Learn about how the Church honored at once the figure of woman, virgin, mother, and spouse in Our Lady, Mary mother of Jesus. Learn how ever since two thousand years ago the Church reminded husbands to love their wives just as Christ loves the Church, His bride.

This nonsense that we are experiencing is the slow-moving collapse of the values of society. As God is removed from the picture, so are all values. But when we remove God from the picture, as a wise man once said, “we do not worship nothing: we worship anything”. Or, rather, we become our own gods. Or we delude ourselves that way, at least. Pride, vanity, and lust - spotted as the three great problems of the human being since two thousand years ago - become the new values of society. Their fruits: relativism and hedonism. To them, the Church has opposed and still opposes poverty, chastity, and obedience. Poverty in spirit, which is not found in absence of money but in absence of attachment to worldly riches. Chastity, which is not the suppression of our sexuality but the achievement of true balance and self-mastery in a truly fulfilling way. Obedience, which is not blindly following without understanding, but listening carefully to others and humbly following that which leads us to forget ourselves and focus on helping those who are more in need than us, trusting that others shall do the same for us. This is the meaning of living in a community.
👍 A superb post!
 
Marriage is meaningless when it is divorced from the union of a man and a woman whose love ensures the preservation of society.
 
The Courts have certainly recognized marriage as a fundamental right in the US, though I admit I am stretching the conclusions of Windsor too far.

Still, the majority opinion in Windsor holds DOMA to be unconstitutional because, among other things, it disparages and injures same-sex couples. If this is the standard, then what is to prevent this right from being extended to polyamorous marriages? Let us pretend that Charlie Sheen is interested in marrying his girlfriends – why deny them that right?
Assume that no one raises objection to this at all. What would be neefed to make it happen? Aldo what is the primary concern that migjt motivate one against polygamy. Is it to prevdnt one from having simultanious sex partners? People can do that now. People do engage in that now.
 
Assume that no one raises objection to this at all. What would be neefed to make it happen? Aldo what is the primary concern that migjt motivate one against polygamy. Is it to prevdnt one from having simultanious sex partners? People can do that now. People do engage in that now.
I suppose what would be needed is a challenge to existing law. For example, Charlie Sheen could sue the state for not recognizing his marriage as “valid” under some equal protection scheme.
 
Today’s decision in US v Windsor provoked this question: Just what, exactly, is the purpose of marriage?

If it is a civil right, then it has the potential to include many other types of relationships as well. I do not think we are headed down the slippery slope just yet, but I do not see how the US can deny polyamorous marriages, or even adult incest marriages, IF marriage is defined as a constitutional right/privilege.
The purpose of civil marriage seems to be freedom of religion.

For example before it was introduced in England, Catholics had to get married in a Church of England church - bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17351133

As it’s about freedom of religion, it’s for society to decide who society will recognize as being married.
 
I suppose what would be needed is a challenge to existing law. For example, Charlie Sheen could sue the state for not recognizing his marriage as “valid” under some equal protection scheme.
I am trying to understand what the end goal would be for having multiple mariage contracts.
If Charley S. Wanted multiple marriage contracts does this mean that he wants to have multiple women to have authority to make medical decisions if he is ever unable, that he wants multiple women to have claim to his estatenwhen he dies?..
 
I am trying to understand what the end goal would be for having multiple marriage contracts.
If Charley S. Wanted multiple marriage contracts does this mean that he wants to have multiple women to have authority to make medical decisions if he is ever unable, that he wants multiple women to have claim to his estate when he dies?..
Charlie Sheen might be a terrible example, but suppose the “end goal” is that Sheen and his wives simply want to be recognized as being in a valid (recognized) marital relationship (and thus bring a claim under the Equal Protection Clause). A more serious example might be Mormons who practice plural marriages.
 
Charlie Sheen might be a terrible example, but suppose the “end goal” is that Sheen and his wives simply want to be recognized as being in a valid (recognized) marital relationship (and thus bring a claim under the Equal Protection Clause). A more serious example might be Mormons who practice plural marriages.
Are you talking about the Jeff Warens - the mormon group the engages in polygamy? It seems they don’t have interest in changing their laws. But they also have a strange type of polygamy going on in that presently the women are said to be only allowed to be having sex with one of a select group of males (who were assigned the responsibility of procreation). These men could be different than the man to which the female is married (so “wife” and “husband” don’t imply “sexual pairing” here, at least for long as that restriction is in place). They’ve got some other issues going on to, like marrying off girls as young as 12. From what I understand they don’t have interest in changing the outside world/culture and stick to themselves. So I don’t think they will be trying to change the law any time soon (if at all).

There is some group of black Muslims in the USA that practice polygamy. From NPR’s interview with the husband:
NPR:
Zaki believes ultimately, polygamy is good for society — especially in the inner city, where intact families are rare and many kids grow up without their fathers.

“There are a lot of blessings in it because you’re helping legitimize and build a family that’s rooted in values and commitment. And the children that come out of those types of relationships only become a benefit to society at large.”

Many orthodox Muslims agree. You can find them on Fridays at a mosque in South Philadelphia.
From what I’ve seen the group hasn’t expressed interest in changing the contract of marriage from a binary relationship to a something involving more than two people. I don’t think that I will have much success in answering you earlier question on what is there to stop the marriage contract from being in agreement between two people until I can find some one that is proposing it and defining what it would involve. From a behavioural standpoint there is nothing stopping polygamy/ polyamory from occurring as it is already occurring with religious justifications.


But on a related note, it seems that polygamy was practiced in the old testament. Is that viewed as being immoral from a Catholic perspective? Why or why not?
 
The Courts have certainly recognized marriage as a fundamental right in the US, though I admit I am stretching the conclusions of Windsor too far.

Still, the majority opinion in Windsor holds DOMA to be unconstitutional because, among other things, it disparages and injures same-sex couples. If this is the standard, then what is to prevent this right from being extended to polyamorous marriages? Let us pretend that Charlie Sheen is interested in marrying his girlfriends – why deny them that right? It seems to me that the same arguments in favor of SSM hold true, at the very least, for polyamorous marriage, and possibly extend to other relationships as well.
I think your reasoning is sound. I have yet to hear an argument FOR “same sex marriage” that isn’t equally valid for incestual “marriage,” concubines, polygamist “marriages,” “temporary contract marriages,” etc… etc… etc… There’s no slippery slope paranoia if you ask me. It’s simply the trajectory of the current precedent. Unfortunately, many “same-sex marriage” proponents analyze their position no further than “It’s just people who love each other!!!” and never get beyond an emotional perspective.

The natural law and the very body itself speaks to the proper communion of a single male and single female to create families as stable pillars of society. Every occasion where society attempted to stray from that foundation has resulted in broken homes, more poverty, more crime, in general, than from families with children growing up in stable mother-father homes. Even apart from a religious view (which is certainly valid), it is not in the cultural best interest of a nation to attempt to “normalize” anything but one male-one female marriages. In fact, marriage is not an invention of the state, but more prudent governments recognized these religious arrangements as foundational for a society and encouraged such relationships in their laws. Now the whole thing has been perverted and we have government attempting to define ontological realities that are not subject to change because a politician swiped his pen.
 
The purpose of civil marriage seems to be freedom of religion.

For example before it was introduced in England, Catholics had to get married in a Church of England church - bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17351133
Assuming that the nature of marriage is determined solely by human beings.
As it’s about freedom of religion, it’s for society to decide who society will recognize as being married.
Assuming that the nature of marriage is determined solely by human beings.

Marriage is meaningless when it is divorced from the union of a man and a woman whose love ensures the preservation of society.
 
The purpose of civil marriage seems to be freedom of religion.

For example before it was introduced in England, Catholics had to get married in a Church of England church - bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17351133
tonyrey;10925144:
Assuming that the nature of marriage is determined solely by human beings.
You missed out the word “civil”.
Marriage is meaningless when it is divorced from the union of a man and a woman whose love ensures the preservation of society.
*"as late as the 18th century, the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote that any man who was in love with his wife was probably too dull to be loved by another woman.

When did romance enter the picture? In the 17th and 18th centuries, when Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness. They advocated marrying for love rather than wealth or status." - theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top