The Purpose of Marriage

[tonyrey]

*The purpose of civil marriage seems to be freedom of religion.

Your previous posts on the subject suggest that the nature of marriage is determined 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

.
*"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/228…over-centuries*

Did the teaching of Jesus about marriage have nothing to do with love and the pursuit of happiness?

 

[tonyrey]

Judging from your description of yourself you don’t know the purpose of anything!

On the contrary:

CCC 1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

Moreover the Church doesn’t restrict the purpose of marriage to Catholics.

Your acknowledged confusion is evident!

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

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.

I think you are right about the trajectory:

usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/24/polyamorous-advocate-gay-marriage-blazing-the-marriage-equality-trail

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

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.

Again, this sort of legal positivism is what fueled the worst human disasters and the slaughter of millions of human lives of the last 100+ years.

You better be really careful what you wish for. Especially if you call yourself a “christian”.

 

[tonyrey]

Again, this sort of legal positivism is what fueled the worst human disasters and the slaughter of millions of human lives of the last 100+ years.

You better be really careful what you wish for. Especially if you call yourself a “christian”.

 

[inocente]

Your previous posts on the subject suggest that the nature of marriage is determined by human beings.

According to section 7 of the BBC article I linked, civil marriage was introduced to give freedom of religion.

Therefore either God inspired secularism or civil marriage was invented by human beings specifically to avoid giving favor to any particular religious take.

Did the teaching of Jesus about marriage have nothing to do with love and the pursuit of happiness?

History depends on facts, not on your twentieth century post women’s liberation relativist opinion.

*"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/228…over-centuries*

 

[inocente]

Again, this sort of legal positivism is what fueled the worst human disasters and the slaughter of millions of human lives of the last 100+ years.

You better be really careful what you wish for. Especially if you call yourself a “christian”.

Christians belong to Christ, not to every Tom, Dick and Harry on an internet forum.

And as linked, it’s the BBC which says civil marriage is about religious freedom, so complain to them not me.

 

[Spyral]

On the contrary:

Moreover the Church doesn’t restrict the purpose of marriage to Catholics.

Your acknowledged confusion is evident!

I refer you here and possibly to the catechism

 

[tonyrey]

Moreover the Church doesn’t restrict the purpose of marriage to Catholics.

Please cite the statement which **restricts **the purpose of marriage to Catholics.

 

[tonyrey]

Your previous posts on the subject suggest that the nature of marriage is determined by human beings.

According to section 7 of the BBC article I linked, civil marriage was introduced to give freedom of religion.

Therefore either God inspired secularism or civil marriage was invented by human beings specifically to avoid giving favor to any particular religious take.
Your posts still suggest that you believe the nature of marriage is determined by human beings.

Did the teaching of Jesus about marriage have nothing to do with love and the pursuit of happiness?

History depends on facts, not on your twentieth century post women’s liberation relativist opinion.

*"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/228…over-centuriesDid the teaching of Jesus about marriage have nothing to do with* love** and the pursuit of happiness?

 

[inocente]

Your posts still suggest that you believe the nature of marriage is determined by human beings.

Not sure why it didn’t come across but my posts were about CIVIL marriage, invented by humans not by ferrets, flamingos or bull frogs.

Did the teaching of Jesus about marriage have nothing to do with* love*** and the pursuit of happiness?

My posts were about CIVIL marriage. Hope that’s finally cleared up the confusion.

 

[tonyrey]

Not sure why it didn’t come across but my posts were about CIVIL marriage, invented by humans not by ferrets, flamingos or bull frogs.

My posts were about CIVIL marriage. Hope that’s finally cleared up the confusion.

Then why did you state that “the *Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness” and "they advocated marrying for *love rather than wealth or status" as if the teaching of Jesus about marriage has nothing to do with love and the pursuit of happiness? Are life and love only civil concepts?

 

[billcu1]

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 Windsor descision simply declared unconst. §3 of DOMA. It was written in 1996 and said according to the federal government in the case of the estate tax question that marriage is traditionally left up to the states. The federal government has no business declaring what marriage is defined as. States are going to have to ammend there constitutions to decide for themselves what marriage is. Of course we know where we stand.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

110 Stat. 2419 is the act before condified into the USC.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Christians belong to Christ, not to every Tom, Dick and Harry on an internet forum.

And as linked, it’s the BBC which says civil marriage is about religious freedom, so complain to them not me.

It is not only Christians who belong to Christ, EVERYTHING BELONGS TO CHRIST.

This everything includes the moral law, this includes marriage. No human being possesses the right to change the definition of something that doesn’t belong to them, “civil” or otherwise.

Your position is one that insists that laws are “posited”, “made”, by men. And that because a certain group of morally bankrupt politicians decides that something is a “law” that then it must be true.

It the 1000 Scotsman fallacy. 1000 men are no more right or wrong than one. What makes them “right” is if what they “decide” is in accord with God’s natural law.

So spare me what the BBC says. They’re no more an authority than you or any so-called parliamentary body.

“Religious freedom” does not mean that, “I can decide for myself what is right or wrong, true or false.” That’s the lie of the devils, that’s the lie that Lucifer told Adam and Eve.

I’m surprised that you don’t see the obvious consequences of what you’re endorsing.

 

[tonyrey]

It is not only Christians who belong to Christ, EVERYTHING BELONGS TO CHRIST.

This everything includes the moral law, this includes marriage. No human being possesses the right to change the definition of something that doesn’t belong to them, “civil” or otherwise.

Your position is one that insists that laws are “posited”, “made”, by men. And that because a certain group of morally bankrupt politicians decides that something is a “law” that then it must be true.

It the 1000 Scotsman fallacy. 1000 men are no more right or wrong than one. What makes them “right” is if what they “decide” is in accord with God’s natural law.

So spare me what the BBC says. They’re no more an authority than you or any so-called parliamentary body.

“Religious freedom” does not mean that, “I can decide for myself what is right or wrong, true or false.” That’s the lie of the devils, that’s the lie that Lucifer told Adam and Eve.

I’m surprised that you don’t see the obvious consequences of what you’re endorsing.

Man proposes…

 

[inocente]

Then why did you state that “the Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness” and "they advocated marrying for love rather than wealth or status" as if the teaching of Jesus about marriage has nothing to do with love and the pursuit of happiness? Are life and love only civil concepts?

I didn’t state it, I quoted it from the linked article. The purpose of marriage has continually changed throughout history. Prior to the Enlightenment it seems marriage was about alliances, wealth and status. This is a historical fact, whatever the teaching of Jesus.

Another big change was women’s rights, the wife and husband being equal partners. Again you may say Jesus taught it, but for almost two thousand years no one seemed to have noticed (and mentioning no names, one large institution still hasn’t )…

 

[inocente]

It is not only Christians who belong to Christ, EVERYTHING BELONGS TO CHRIST.

This everything includes the moral law, this includes marriage. No human being possesses the right to change the definition of something that doesn’t belong to them, “civil” or otherwise.

Your position is one that insists that laws are “posited”, “made”, by men. And that because a certain group of morally bankrupt politicians decides that something is a “law” that then it must be true.

It the 1000 Scotsman fallacy. 1000 men are no more right or wrong than one. What makes them “right” is if what they “decide” is in accord with God’s natural law.

So spare me what the BBC says. They’re no more an authority than you or any so-called parliamentary body.

“Religious freedom” does not mean that, “I can decide for myself what is right or wrong, true or false.” That’s the lie of the devils, that’s the lie that Lucifer told Adam and Eve.

I’m surprised that you don’t see the obvious consequences of what you’re endorsing.

Civil marriage was introduced to give religious freedom, for instance previously Catholics in England had to get married in Anglican churches. You cannot stamp your religious view on civil marriage without every other religion doing the same.

The fact is that civil marriage is defined by the citizens of a society, and not by organized religions.

If you hate democracy so much, you can always move to North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

 

[tonyrey]

Then why did you state that "the Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness

Do you believe only a minority of couples married because they loved each other? If so how would you justify that belief?

Another big change was women’s rights, the wife and husband being equal partners. Again you may say Jesus taught it, but for almost two thousand years no one seemed to have noticed (and mentioning no names, one large institution still hasn’t).

Do you believe the teaching of Jesus about marriage has nothing to do with** love** and the pursuit of happiness? Have the majority of Christians ignored His teaching in that respect? If so how would you justify that belief?

 

[inocente]

Do you believe only a minority of couples married because they loved each other? If so how would you justify that belief?

I’m going on what historians say.

Do you believe the teaching of Jesus about marriage has nothing to do with* love*** and the pursuit of happiness? Have the majority of Christians ignored His teaching in that respect? If so how would you justify that belief?

I’m going on what historians say.

 

[Muze]

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.

Rights have always been limited by the harm the can cause. The 1st amendment doesn’t guarantee your right to cry fire in a crowded theater.

Incest is limited because of high risk of genetic defects in offspring.

Polygamy is limited because of the degradation of women.

The problem is that the “right” doesn’t include government benefits. The “right” is technically that allows two people to take vows together.