The Purpose of Marriage

[The_GreyPilgrim]

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

Even in that example it is vague and insufficient. I’ve seen nurses who “care for their patients” callously provide abortions. Often the “care” of nurses is indifferent, they “care” for no other reason than that they are being paid to provide a service, that indifference is the actual opposite of love.

So, still, your definition is extraordinarily inadequate.

Do you really interpret physical togetherness as spatial proximity or are you mocking my language deficiencies?

I haven’t noticed any language deficiencies on your part. I just found the euphemism rediculous.

I was trying to describe the sexual aspect of marital love…

Ok.

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.

Even so, I still fail to see any real clear definition of love. I see a lot of euphamisms, but no clarity.

Would you like to try mine?

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.

You receive such knowledge every day. You make an act of faith whenever you read the paper or watch the news on TV. You didn’t receive that knowledge first hand by means of your senses. You believe based on the authority that you ascribe to the news outlet, that what they’re printing or displaying is in fact trustworthy.

But the bottom line is that neither the truth of what the media presents, or your intellectual assent to it, is dependent on your belief or their fidelity in presenting it.

It is objectively true regardless of reason or Faith.

It’s real simple, truth is distinguished from falsehood in regards to belief in how what is believed is in accord with reality. One is necessarily true-it’s faith and reason are synchronous and conform to objective truth; the other false because of some failure in regards to faith, reason, or some mixture of the two and it’s identity with objective truth.

The only reason for the obscurity of someone in regards to observing the communication of true faith and the ability to discern is the fact of sin, not the discussion based on the objective truth of faith. Truth is offensive to those who live according to unreality, that is those who think that they can find happiness through the exercise of their egocentric desires.

This logical inconsistency is the very point of failure in regards to materialism. You all commit the very things for which accuse theists of doing. And you don’t even realize that you do it.

Thus it does not seem sound to use a faith based axiom as something universally known to be correct.

2+2=4 is universally known. It would not be untrue because somone believed it without demonstrating it. The molecules that make up our atmosphere are universally known, but no one has ever seen them. We know of their existence based on faith and reason.

Your assertion itself is not sound, it is in fact self-contradictory, because you “believe” it to be true. It is a “faith based” axiom.

 

[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

It is highly significant that no one on this thread has criticised or refuted any of the above statements which are impossible to reconcile with gay marriage…

 

[mek42]

Even in that example it is vague and insufficient. I’ve seen nurses who “care for their patients” callously provide abortions. Often the “care” of nurses is indifferent, they “care” for no other reason than that they are being paid to provide a service, that indifference is the actual opposite of love.

So, still, your definition is extraordinarily inadequate.

I haven’t noticed any language deficiencies on your part. I just found the euphemism rediculous.

Ok.

Even so, I still fail to see any real clear definition of love. I see a lot of euphamisms, but no clarity.

Would you like to try mine?

You receive such knowledge every day. You make an act of faith whenever you read the paper or watch the news on TV. You didn’t receive that knowledge first hand by means of your senses. You believe based on the authority that you ascribe to the news outlet, that what they’re printing or displaying is in fact trustworthy.

But the bottom line is that neither the truth of what the media presents, or your intellectual assent to it, is dependent on your belief or their fidelity in presenting it.

It is objectively true regardless of reason or Faith.

It’s real simple, truth is distinguished from falsehood in regards to belief in how what is believed is in accord with reality. One is necessarily true-it’s faith and reason are synchronous and conform to objective truth; the other false because of some failure in regards to faith, reason, or some mixture of the two and it’s identity with objective truth.

The only reason for the obscurity of someone in regards to observing the communication of true faith and the ability to discern is the fact of sin, not the discussion based on the objective truth of faith. Truth is offensive to those who live according to unreality, that is those who think that they can find happiness through the exercise of their egocentric desires.

This logical inconsistency is the very point of failure in regards to materialism. You all commit the very things for which accuse theists of doing. And you don’t even realize that you do it.

2+2=4 is universally known. It would not be untrue because somone believed it without demonstrating it. The molecules that make up our atmosphere are universally known, but no one has ever seen them. We know of their existence based on faith and reason.

Your assertion itself is not sound, it is in fact self-contradictory, because you “believe” it to be true. It is a “faith based” axiom.

I have seen valid marriages where the parties involved demonstrated Christian love to each other only as an accident and were usually most unloving to each other. Should I conclude that the Sacrement was extraordinarily inadequate?

Regarding 2 + 2 = 4, that is only true for scalar math, which neither you nor anyone else here that I have seen ever specifies. Generally, as vectors, the correct range of values for the statement is anywhere between zero and four. Since the probability of choosing a specific number from a range of real numbers is zero, your statement has zero probability of being correct.

Molecules can be detected by a variety of means. I can see the resulting chromatograph or spectra from some of these techniques, or even a representation of electron density from x-ray scattering experiments. Prior experiments that I accept on authority, there is a limited faith that the experiment can be repeated that I accept until I or someone else fails to repeat the experiment. This seems to be different than the faith you describe.

Also, for some people, there is a difference between political thoughts and personal thoughts. Please be careful what you accuse my personal thoughts of being as we engage in political discourse.

 

[davidv]

I have seen valid marriages where the parties involved demonstrated Christian love to each other only as an accident and were usually most unloving to each other. Should I conclude that the Sacrement was extraordinarily inadequate?

No. You should conclude that the spouses were unfaithful to their covenant promises because they did not, or would not, avail themselve of the graces made available to them in the sacrament.

Regarding 2 + 2 = 4, that is only true for scalar math, which neither you nor anyone else here that I have seen ever specifies. Generally, as vectors, the correct range of values for the statement is anywhere between zero and four. Since the probability of choosing a specific number from a range of real numbers is zero, your statement has zero probability of being correct.

Fallacy of equivocation.

Molecules can be detected by a variety of means. I can see the resulting chromatograph or spectra from some of these techniques, or even a representation of electron density from x-ray scattering experiments. Prior experiments that I accept on authority, there is a limited faith that the experiment can be repeated that I accept until I or someone else fails to repeat the experiment. This seems to be different than the faith you describe.

Also, for some people, there is a difference between political thoughts and personal thoughts. Please be careful what you accuse my personal thoughts of being as we engage in political discourse.

 

[mek42]

Equivocation? I am being accused of being vague in English, is it not valid to point out that my accuser is being vague in mathematics?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I have seen valid marriages where the parties involved demonstrated Christian love to each other only as an accident and were usually most unloving to each other. Should I conclude that the Sacrement was extraordinarily inadequate?

As I told “Tyrion”, you don’t dismantle the health profession because a number of doctors are found guilty of malpractice.

You judge the institution of marriage by it’s best adherents, not it’s worst.

Regarding 2 + 2 = 4, that is only true for scalar math, which neither you nor anyone else here that I have seen ever specifies. Generally, as vectors, the correct range of values for the statement is anywhere between zero and four. Since the probability of choosing a specific number from a range of real numbers is zero, your statement has zero probability of being correct.

Yeah, that’s a Red Herring. Not only that, but you are asserting it objectively.

Molecules can be detected by a variety of means. I can see the resulting chromatograph or spectra from some of these techniques, or even a representation of electron density from x-ray scattering experiments. Prior experiments that I accept on authority, there is a limited faith that the experiment can be repeated that I accept until I or someone else fails to repeat the experiment. This seems to be different than the faith you describe.

So, in other words, when it comes to the supernatural, you commit the fallacy of “raising the the bar”.

There have been millions throughout history who have tried the experiment of faith, and have found peace, joy, happiness, and true freedom. There have been millions more who have tried the experiment of materialism and egocentric desire, and have found only emptyness, joylessness, depression, and nihilism. Sure they find fleeting pleasures, minor and temporary joys and loves, but nothing coming close to that fullness of those who are theists.

Your approach of itself seems rather unscientific. You have rejected the hypothesis not because you have fully experimented on it, not because you have tried to collect the data and thoughtfully sift through it to see if it’s objectively true, but only because you subjectively reject it’s premises and conclusions based on your prejudices.

Also, for some people, there is a difference between political thoughts and personal thoughts. Please be careful what you accuse my personal thoughts of being as we engage in political discourse.

I’m, sorry, but I never met anyone before who comparmentalized their thoughts in such a way. Thoughts are part and parcel of who we are, whether they be of a personal or political they are integral to us.

My political thoughts are my personal thoughts, as are my philosophical and theological thoughts. Nor do I mind discussing them. I care nothing for thoughts that I have that may be in fact wrong. That is thoughts positively proven to be so, because that would be foolish to hold on to to such thoughts no matter how bad that you want them to be true.

I simply don’t understand the necessity of the distinction unless it is to distract from addressing the issue of objective truth altogether.

 

[mek42]

As I told “Tyrion”, you don’t dismantle the health profession because a number of doctors are found guilty of malpractice.

You judge the institution of marriage by it’s best adherents, not it’s worst.

Yeah, that’s a Red Herring. Not only that, but you are asserting it objectively.

So, in other words, when it comes to the supernatural, you commit the fallacy of “raising the the bar”.

There have been millions throughout history who have tried the experiment of faith, and have found peace, joy, happiness, and true freedom. There have been millions more who have tried the experiment of materialism and egocentric desire, and have found only emptyness, joylessness, depression, and nihilism. Sure they find fleeting pleasures, minor and temporary joys and loves, but nothing coming close to that fullness of those who are theists.

Your approach of itself seems rather unscientific. You have rejected the hypothesis not because you have fully experimented on it, not because you have tried to collect the data and thoughtfully sift through it to see if it’s objectively true, but only because you subjectively reject it’s premises and conclusions based on your prejudices.

I’m, sorry, but I never met anyone before who comparmentalized their thoughts in such a way. Thoughts are part and parcel of who we are, whether they be of a personal or political they are integral to us.

My political thoughts are my personal thoughts, as are my philosophical and theological thoughts. Nor do I mind discussing them. I care nothing for thoughts that I have that may be in fact wrong. That is thoughts positively proven to be so, because that would be foolish to hold on to to such thoughts no matter how bad that you want them to be true.

I simply don’t understand the necessity of the distinction unless it is to distract from addressing the issue of objective truth altogether.

Why is it OK for you to judge my metaphor of love / care by the worst of nurses and then insist that I judge Holy Matrimony by the best of couples?

Regarding personal and political thoughts, do you think someone should be legally punished for taking the Lord’s name in vain in public?

I am not raising the bar regarding the unprovable, I just think that we should be well aware of when our policy positions hinge on our unprovable axioms that are not universally shared.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not raising the bar regarding the unprovable, I just think that we should be well aware of when our policy positions hinge on our unprovable axioms that are not universally shared.

Are you certain that all of our policy positions hinge on provable axioms that are universally shared?

 

[mek42]

Are you certain that all of our policy positions hinge on provable axioms that are universally shared?

I didn’t say they do. I said I think we should be aware of our unprovable axioms. This is especially important when trying to make policy with a diverse group of people with different axioms.

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t say they do. I said I think we should be aware of our unprovable axioms. This is especially important when trying to make policy with a diverse group of people with different axioms.

What policies, specifically, are you thinking of?

 

[mek42]

What policies, specifically, are you thinking of?

All of them. Whenever we setup a system of governance to preside over diverse peoples, if the diversity of axioms is not at least acknowledged, if not respected, that government will soon be rife with unrest.

 

[PRmerger]

All of them. Whenever we setup a system of governance to preside over diverse peoples, if the diversity of axioms is not at least acknowledged, if not respected, that government will soon be rife with unrest.

So I am confused about what you are arguing.

Are you saying that policies of our govt need to hinge on our provable axioms that are universally shared?

 

[mek42]

So I am confused about what you are arguing.

Are you saying that policies of our govt need to hinge on our provable axioms that are universally shared?

I think that all parties need to be aware that their axioms are axioms, and that others may have a different axiom set. This way, when inevitable disagreements occur, the source of the disagreement may be traced back all the way to differing axioms if need be. Then compromise solutions may be discussed. What may very well happen is that one issue is of high importance to one axiom set, but the other axiom set has a different issue of importance. The two axiom sets could then make an exchange where each ones gets their way in the issue important to them and concedes in the issue not as important to them.

 

[josh987654321]

.

"People like to pretend that they don’t know what God wants, when in actual fact they do, they just don’t like the answer."

I have been thinking about our previous posts on this thread and I’m not too sure how I can approach the issue again with you, surely after what I have said earlier in this thread you must know that the sexual acts of homosexuality are sinful because of the very fact that Christ said that in the beginning God made us male and female, that this was his plan for marriage and that the sexual acts of homosexuality are sinful because it means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for.

However for some reason you are refusing to acknowledge it, I don’t know what that reason is. If I am wrong about the sexual acts of homosexuality being sinful, than could you please educate me. If not, why do you refuse the idea of homosexual acts being sinful?

What would you need to hear before even entertaining the idea that the sexual acts of homosexuality could be sinful?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

I have said earlier in this thread you must know that the sexual acts of homosexuality are sinful because of the very fact that Christ said that in the beginning God made us male and female, that this was his plan for marriage and that the sexual acts of homosexuality are sinful because it means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for.

However for some reason you are refusing to acknowledge it, I don’t know what that reason is.

We discussed this in depth on a previous thread, Secular argument against gay marriage, and as I’ve told you a number of times both there and here, I’ve got nothing to add to what has already been said.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that all parties need to be aware that their axioms are axioms, and that others may have a different axiom set. This way, when inevitable disagreements occur, the source of the disagreement may be traced back all the way to differing axioms if need be. Then compromise solutions may be discussed. What may very well happen is that one issue is of high importance to one axiom set, but the other axiom set has a different issue of importance. The two axiom sets could then make an exchange where each ones gets their way in the issue important to them and concedes in the issue not as important to them.

So let’s take the policy of motorcycle helmets being required.

It is predicated upon an axiom that is not universally accepted.

What is your position on this/

 

[Ion]

We discussed this in depth on a previous thread, Secular argument against gay marriage, and as I’ve told you a number of times both there and here, I’ve got nothing to add to what has already been said.

All the Baptist I know are kind of fundamentalists, women wear a scarf over the head, they do not drink alcohol, do not refrain making kids; even to ask them “are you homosexual” would be considered an offense. So why do you mention a secular argument?

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

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.

If what you say is true, and I agree with you on some level, then marriage is an organic institution with arbitrary boundaries. At present, it seems the purpose of marriage is to define relationships for estate or tax planning objectives.

This brings me back to my original post, which is that the denial of polyamorous marriages or adult incest marriages is essentially arbitrary. And given that these relationships currently exist, and there is no real reason for rejecting such marriages, then perhaps recognizing these relationships as “marriages” is not too far down the road.

(PS - my apologies for not keeping up with the thread. I had been receiving email notifications, but they suddenly stopped, so I did not think the thread was still active).

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

So let’s take the policy of motorcycle helmets being required.

It is predicated upon an axiom that is not universally accepted.

What is your position on this/

The issue of motorcycle helmets is a good one to bring up, since it demonstrates the tension that can arise among “universally accepted” principles. In the motorcycle helmet example, the two principles that conflict are (1) preservation of life/preventing harm, and (2) autonomy. We see this tension vis-a-vis regulations related to safety (the Patriot Act comes to mind).

 

[Ion]

If what you say is true, and I agree with you on some level, then marriage is an organic institution with arbitrary boundaries. At present, it seems the purpose of marriage is to define relationships for estate or tax planning objectives.

This brings me back to my original post, which is that the denial of polyamorous marriages or adult incest marriages is essentially arbitrary. And given that these relationships currently exist, and there is no real reason for rejecting such marriages, then perhaps recognizing these relationships as “marriages” is not too far down the road.

(PS - my apologies for not keeping up with the thread. I had been receiving email notifications, but they suddenly stopped, so I did not think the thread was still active).

He is not; exceptions and people that sneaked around using the marriage a 'tool" for their pupose are not the rule.