The Purpose of Marriage

[tonyrey]

So you can’t give chapter and verse for your claim that Jesus teaches marriage is about “love and the pursuit of happiness”.

1. Do you believe only that for which you can give chapter and verse?
2. Are you restricted to the statements in the Bible?
3. Do you deny there are many truths Christians believe that are deduced from His teaching?
4. Why is it necessary to cite Jesus if you believe St Paul’s teaching that marriage is about love and commitment?
5. Do you believe St Paul was misrepresenting Jesus or discovered by himself a fact Jesus overlooked?
6. Did Jesus or St Paul teach or imply that the purpose of marriage is not to make the husband and wife - and their children - happy?
7. Do you believe the purpose of marriage is** not **to make the husband and wife - and their children - happy?

If these questions are evaded again there is no point in continuing this “discussion” because it will be decisive evidence that Lutheran irrationalism still exists.
.

 

[Ion]

With “symbols that mock the bakers beliefs”? Where does the article say that?

Can’t be otherwise; probably asked for some special decorations or text and the baker didn’t want to write them; the baker didn’t have any sign or didn’t make any statement against such customer. Would you be willing to write anything a customer asks you?

 

[tonyrey]

1. Are you restricted to the statements in the Bible?

There is often disagreement about the meaning of statements in the Bible. How do you decide which interpretation is correct? Do you believe your interpretation is always correct?

BTW This issue is directly related to the topic which includes the Christian interpretation of the purpose of marriage.

 

[inocente]

Can’t be otherwise; probably asked for some special decorations or text and the baker didn’t want to write them; the baker didn’t have any sign or didn’t make any statement against such customer.

Oh, so the article doesn’t say that, you just presumed something.

The article does say “…declining to provide service after learning of the couple’s sexuality…”, so the baker just heard the word gay and presumed something, although not the same thing you presumed.

 

[inocente]

If these questions are evaded again there is no point in continuing this “discussion” because it will be decisive evidence that Lutheran irrationalism still exists.

If you can’t give chapter and verse for your claim that Jesus teaches marriage is about “love and the pursuit of happiness” then so be it.

I do wish you wouldn’t bring sectarianism into every thread though, you raised this thing about Luther out of nowhere on another thread and now you’re jumping threads to continue it here. I’ve told you several times I’ve no interest in Luther or in your view of him.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

As they say: “three strikes and you are out!” Welcome to my (ever growing) ignore list. Buh-bye.

Which again demonstrates your irrationality.

Rational people are open to the truth wherever it may lead them. It seems that all that you’re interested in is engaging people with irrational arguments just to simply satisfy your ideology and prejudices.

Your non-answers say more about you than about me.

But God bless you anyway. I’ll keep you in my prayers.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I conclude then that there are no temporal consequences for a marriage valid by the State yet invalid by the Church.
By invoking references to divine law and natural law amongst others who do not share your beliefs, everything that follows is also circular. By your own words most of your argument is to be discounted.

Wrong, syllogistically put it goes like this:

1. There is a God
2. Truth is part of the nature of God.
3. Those truths are expressed in what is called divine law.
4. All creation under God is subject to divine law, for God has ,“written His law on the human heart.”
5. This divine law is “natural” for all creation, i.e. “natural” meaning “that which pertains to the object created.”
   6)Therefore those who reject divine law not only act contrary to their nature and thus incurring temporal consequences of it, they also violate the the eternal divine law by offending the God to Whom they owe their existence.

See, not circular. You may reject the first premise. But that still fails to win you the argument, because rejection is meaningless. You have to prove that the first premise is indeed false.

And you can’t.

 

[mek42]

Wrong, syllogistically put it goes like this:

1. There is a God
2. Truth is part of the nature of God.
3. Those truths are expressed in what is called divine law.
4. All creation under God is subject to divine law, for God has ,“written His law on the human heart.”
5. This divine law is “natural” for all creation, i.e. “natural” meaning “that which pertains to the object created.”
   6)Therefore those who reject divine law not only act contrary to their nature and thus incurring temporal consequences of it, they also violate the the eternal divine law by offending the God to Whom they owe their existence.

See, not circular. You may reject the first premise. But that still fails to win you the argument, because rejection is meaningless. You have to prove that the first premise is indeed false.

And you can’t.

Just as you cannot prove it true. By refusing to at least attempt to agree on a common set of axioms you are demonstrating that you desire only to state the way you want things to be, not seeking to engage in honest debate.

However, I will attempt an alternative similar to yours.

God exists.

God is inherently unknowable, different people have different levels of incomplete knowledge of the divine.

The greatest command of divine law is that we love one another.

Therefore interfering with love between humans due to our perception of divinity must be wrong.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Just as you cannot prove it true.

Many men a lot smarter than you or I have come to the conclusion of God’s real and objective existence. Aquinas’s “Five Ways” from the Summa are just a start. Your objection is proof that you have not done your homework.

You can’t ignore or fudge your data to fit your theory.

By refusing to at least attempt to agree on a common set of axioms you are demonstrating that you desire only to state the way you want things to be, not seeking to engage in honest debate.

Why? Because I refuse to accept your subjective and relative reasoning? Your charge is absurd.

The axioms I have posited are simple, the whole of divine law is greater or superior than it’s part which is what you call “civil law”. I’ve argued that “civil marriage” much less homosexual marriage, cannot be equal to sacramental marriage( law of non-contradiction).

Your argument is that divine law doesn’t exist period, with no proof given but your subjective assertion. And you’re lecturing me that I’m the one not engaging in honest debate? Who’s arguing in circles?

That is rather disingenuous on your part.

However, I will attempt an alternative similar to yours.

God exists.

God is inherently unknowable, different people have different levels of incomplete knowledge of the divine.

That is itself a contradictory statement. Because for it to be true you would have to know that which you claim is unknowable.

Two, the follow-up comment contradicts your first statement. You admit people have different levels of knowledge of Whom you claim is unknowable.

Three, the fact that people have different levels of knowledge of God has nothing to do with God. It has to do with people, because people live in time. Some people have more knowledge of math and some people have less, that by no means negates the objective existence of math and quantities.

So that premise fails.

The greatest command of divine law is that we love one another.

You have not defined what you mean by “love”. What is it?

Therefore interfering with love between humans due to our perception of divinity must be wrong.

Wrong. But as above, you have failed to define what you mean by “love”, so your premise is just too vague to address.

I would argue that love cannot be mere feeling. God is love, but God is not a “feeling”, God is infinitely more than a feeling. Therefore love has to be beyond the combination of feelings that our culture calls “being in love”.

So without clarifying your definitions, the first two premises of your argument already have failed. Therefore also your conclusion.

 

[tonyrey]

The purpose of marriage is beautifully expressed in the Catholic Catechism:

1603 "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws… God himself is the author of marriage."87 The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes…

1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.90 Since God created him man and woman, **their mutual love **becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man…

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."92 The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” i.e., his counterpart, his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

1641 "By reason of their state in life and of their order, [Christian spouses] have their own special gifts in the People of God."145 This grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony is intended to perfect the couple’s **love **and to strengthen their indissoluble unity…

1642 Christ is the source of this grace. "Just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our Savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony."147 Christ dwells with them, gives them the strength to take up their crosses and so follow him, to rise again after they have fallen, to forgive one another, to bear one another’s burdens, to "be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ,"148 and to love one another with supernatural, tender, and fruitful **love. **In the joys of their love and family life he gives them here on earth a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb:

How can I ever express the **happiness **of a marriage joined by the Church, strengthened by an offering, sealed by a blessing, announced by angels, and ratified by the Father? . . . How wonderful the bond between two believers, now one in hope, one in desire, one in discipline, one in the same service! They are both children of one Father and servants of the same Master, undivided in spirit and flesh, truly two in one flesh. Where the flesh is one, one also is the spirit.149

• Tertullian, Ad uxorem. 2, 8, 6-7

 

[Muze]

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 )…

This is to a large extent false. Arranged marriages among the nobility may have been about these things, but they represent a VERY small percentage of the population. (And procreation was necessary for the marriage to be a success.)

Marriage in general has always been about procreation and the continuance of one’s family line. We can go back to the ancient near east when procreation resulting from marriage was so important that a brother or close relative was expected to produce children for a man who died having a wife but no children.

And even in the game of status and wealth and alliances, the success of these marriages was dependent upon procreation. If the marriage didn’t produce any children, then all of the above was in jeopardy.

So, the fact is that marriage has always fundamentally been about procreation, whether it was simply for the continuance of one’s family line or for money/power/status. Procreation has always been at the core.

So, let’s dispense with the silly notion that marriage at some time wasn’t about procreation. Any “motivation” you can attach to it has always included the necessity of procreation to make a marriage successful.

 

[mek42]

Do different people have that divine law written on their hearts differently?

 

[inocente]

This is to a large extent false. Arranged marriages among the nobility may have been about these things, but they represent a VERY small percentage of the population. (And procreation was necessary for the marriage to be a success.)

Marriage in general has always been about procreation and the continuance of one’s family line. We can go back to the ancient near east when procreation resulting from marriage was so important that a brother or close relative was expected to produce children for a man who died having a wife but no children.

And even in the game of status and wealth and alliances, the success of these marriages was dependent upon procreation. If the marriage didn’t produce any children, then all of the above was in jeopardy.

So, the fact is that marriage has always fundamentally been about procreation, whether it was simply for the continuance of one’s family line or for money/power/status. Procreation has always been at the core.

So, let’s dispense with the silly notion that marriage at some time wasn’t about procreation. Any “motivation” you can attach to it has always included the necessity of procreation to make a marriage successful.

If you dispense with the silly notion of actually looking at history, you’ll also have to explain how all the marriages between old or infertile couples, where procreation is impossible, are still about procreation.

Rather than calling inconvenient facts “silly”, it would be more accurate to say there has never been just one single fixed purpose of marriage, instead there has always been a set of purposes, with priorities varying through history and between different cultures and different marriages.

Both the supporters and opponents of equal marriage try to invent polarizing myths but the truth is in between.

 

[Muze]

If you dispense with the silly notion of actually looking at history, you’ll also have to explain how all the marriages between old or infertile couples, where procreation is impossible, are still about procreation.

Exception to the rule in recent times… Didn’t happen in the past. Once a woman was past child bearing age and her husband died, she was cared for as a widow.

Rather than calling inconvenient facts “silly”, it would be more accurate to say there has never been just one single fixed purpose of marriage, instead there has always been a set of purposes, with priorities varying through history and between different cultures and different marriages.

Which, historically, is false. Only in recent times has anyone even attempted to separate marriage from procreation. We can go back as near as the SCOTUS ruling in Skinner v. Oklahoma, where they say that marriage and procreation are essential to the continuance of the human race. And that was the 20th century.

So, I think you need to get out of your agenda and think critically for a bit.

Both the supporters and opponents of equal marriage try to invent polarizing myths but the truth is in between.

And anyone who knows history knows this is false. Marriage throughout history has always had a procreation component to it, especially with regards to its success.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Do different people have that divine law written on their hearts differently?

One, I have yet to receive from you your definition of “love”. Am I to assume by your apparent avoidance that you are ceding the argument?

Two:
No. People either just choose to ignore it or conveniently deny it’s existence.

“For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God has made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord Him glory as God or give Him thanks. Instead they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise they became fools…They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious towards their parents.
They are senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

 

[mek42]

One, I have yet to receive from you your definition of “love”. Am I to assume by your apparent avoidance that you are ceding the argument?

Two:
No. People either just choose to ignore it or conveniently deny it’s existence.

“For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God has made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord Him glory as God or give Him thanks. Instead they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise they became fools…They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious towards their parents.
They are senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

Love is, in essence, that we care for one another. Marital love builds onto this by seeking permanence and adding greater physical togetherness.

Do you claim to know all there is to know of God? You assert that God is not unknowable and that divine law is given fully to all. What role then has that which the Church accepts as mysteries of faith?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Love is, in essence, that we care for one another. Marital love builds onto this by seeking permanence and adding greater physical togetherness.

People “care” about their dogs. Then they kill them through euthanasia. I “care” for my pets, but that in no way means that they are equal to me much less appropriate for marriage.

Your definition is really absurd. It’s mere sentiment, feeling. Feelings fade. So also does “caring”. Love is more than a feeling of caring. Feelings come to us, love comes from us.

Feelings are instincts, your definition is one that commits the fallacy of deriving more from less, “ought” from “is”. Which is obviously rediculous because feelings often contradict each other.

“Physical togetherness” is vague and meaningless. Are we to infer that love is dependent upon spatial proximity?

Do you claim to know all there is to know of God?

No, but your corollary to that rhtorical question is self-contradictory.

I said that the knowledge that we all have is sufficient that we are all answerable to Him. There is a difference.

You assert that God is not unknowable and that divine law is given fully to all. What role then has that which the Church accepts as mysteries of faith?

Knowledge based on faith. It is true based on the fact that it’s source is Truth. It is knowledge based upon supreme authority. This knowledge is not opposed to reason, but lifts reason above it’s mere natural abilities.

 

[inocente]

Exception to the rule in recent times… Didn’t happen in the past. Once a woman was past child bearing age and her husband died, she was cared for as a widow.

Which, historically, is false. Only in recent times has anyone even attempted to separate marriage from procreation. We can go back as near as the SCOTUS ruling in Skinner v. Oklahoma, where they say that marriage and procreation are essential to the continuance of the human race. And that was the 20th century.

So, I think you need to get out of your agenda and think critically for a bit.

And anyone who knows history knows this is false. Marriage throughout history has always had a procreation component to it, especially with regards to its success.

In the space of one post you’ve gone from procreation being the purpose of marriage to procreation being a component, so my work here is done. As I said there has never been just one single fixed purpose to all marriages.

 

[mek42]

People “care” about their dogs. Then they kill them through euthanasia. I “care” for my pets, but that in no way means that they are equal to me much less appropriate for marriage.

Your definition is really absurd. It’s mere sentiment, feeling. Feelings fade. So also does “caring”. Love is more than a feeling of caring. Feelings come to us, love comes from us.

Feelings are instincts, your definition is one that commits the fallacy of deriving more from less, “ought” from “is”. Which is obviously rediculous because feelings often contradict each other.

“Physical togetherness” is vague and meaningless. Are we to infer that love is dependent upon spatial proximity?

No, but your corollary to that rhtorical question is self-contradictory.

I said that the knowledge that we all have is sufficient that we are all answerable to Him. There is a difference.

Knowledge based on faith. It is true based on the fact that it’s source is Truth. It is knowledge based upon supreme authority. This knowledge is not opposed to reason, but lifts reason above it’s mere natural abilities.

I meant care as an act, not a feeling, similar to how nurses care for their patients.

Do you really interpret physical togetherness as spatial proximity or are you mocking my language deficiencies? I was trying to describe the sexual aspect of marital love, but even so, it is not necessarily sexual - a loving embrace of a spouse after a long day has a specialness not found in a hug from even a close friend.

That you claim to speak of Truth stems from an act of faith, a choice to believe something. Someone else may have an equivalent faith in something else. Both of you will claim to be correct in an equal fashion, it may not be possible for an observer to note a difference between the two faiths. Thus it does not seem sound to use a faith based axiom as something universally known to be correct.

 

[Muze]

In the space of one post you’ve gone from procreation being the purpose of marriage to procreation being a component, so my work here is done. As I said there has never been just one single fixed purpose to all marriages.

The one component that has always existed in marriage is procreation. A marriage that didn’t procreate was a failed marriage. That’s been true since people have been marrying. TBH, the idea of marriage without kids is really only about 30 years old.