The Purpose of Marriage

[PRmerger]

Yes, but keep in mind I was responding to your suggestion to “…change the laws. Don’t change the holy covenant…” and to show that this is what is happening.

I am not understanding your response here.

Are you suggesting that people are not trying to change what our understanding of marriage is?

 

[Gidge]

1. Procreation
2. A remedy against concupiscence

In that order.

 

[1AugustSon7]

You quoted the the article without keeping the layout. On the web page it is:

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.

This is ridiculous. Classical ethics teaches that the aim of ethics is happiness or eudaimonia. It is associated with the virtues and instruction in virtue. Your source should do their homework.

They advocated marrying for love rather than wealth or status.

A debate already lively in the poetic tradition, one; and two, as your source confirms, the lower classes already tended to do this. Finally, as the example of Shakespeare makes plain, the idea of marrying just for love was scarely unheard of before the enlightenment philosophers came along.

This trend was augmented by the Industrial Revolution and the growth of the middle class in the 19th century, which enabled young men to select a spouse and pay for a wedding, regardless of parental approval. As people took more control of their love lives, they began to demand the right to end unhappy unions. Divorce became much more commonplace. - theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries

[/INDENT]

The claim is not that Enlightenment thinkers invented romance but that it was only then and later that marrying for love became both desirable and possible for most people.

A novel and frequently naive idea of romance partly because of their tendency to reject concepts like original sin, concupiscence and thus idealize things.

So just like the article, you’re saying that marrying for love became both desirable and possible with the Industrial Revolution.

Even before that, actually; it was an ideal before hand regardless, just thought of as unrealistic (especially if you were noble).

Thus if we leave aside whether “entered the picture” in the article’s sub-heading is intended to mean “invented” or “emerged” (I think the latter is the usual meaning) then it seems we agree that the purpose of marriage has, for most people, varied through history.

This is a subjective approach. The purpose of marriage has always been seen as an institution for the propagation of the human race. It centers around the family and the education of children. The debate was the balance between duty and responsibility and love. Primarily and objectively the purpose of marriage is procreation and the propagation of the human race. Children require enormous amounts of attention and training. The debate about love or romance was secondary to this.

 

[mek42]

I am not understanding your response here.

Are you suggesting that people are not trying to change what our understanding of marriage is?

At first you said not to change holy marriage and then changed your mind and started leaving off the holy. What do you mean when you say marriage without any modifiers?

 

[PRmerger]

At first you said not to change holy marriage and then changed your mind and started leaving off the holy. What do you mean when you say marriage without any modifiers?

Well, that’s like arguing: you said that this isn’t a round circle. We are just talking about circles here. Not* round* circles.

 

[mek42]

ion

**It’s about the mental health… **

It’s about the mental health of heterosexual children to be adopted by same sex parents. Do you think these children have a right to be adopted by heterosexual parents, or would you deny their right in favor of the right of homosexuals to adopt heterosexual children?

The law does not specifically endorse the right of blasphemers to adopt heterosexual children.

But now sodomites can because they have equal marital footing with heterosexual parents?

So it is Ok for homosexual children to be adopted by same sex parents? Should heterosexual parent then be forbidden from adopting homosexual children? Would need to wait until a child’s preferences are known before allowing adoption?

 

[1AugustSon7]

It doesn’t alter the fact that what was once taught as the natural order (serfdom and the divine right of kings) is no longer considered the natural order. Beliefs about what is the natural order and what is human nature are not absolute but vary with culture.

Okay you are deeply confused about this and you keep subjectivizing everything.

You can’t argue saying that during serfdom, for example, people were wrongly taught that virtual slavery was somehow a part of the natural order of things and the fulfillment of our nature (i.e., virtuous), then use that as point to argue that today we should teach that homosexual behaviour is a part of the natural order and thus pretend two men can be married to each other. Homosexuality is plainly not the fulfillment of our nature; the consequences of such a doctrine would be immediately absurd.

What you are, in effect, saying is that blind human fiat frequently tries to impose institutions or practices that are objectively wrong (i.e., contrary to reason, justice and nature on to people) and no one would disagree with that statement. History is littered with examples of it. However, it is plain to anyone of sense that homosexual relationships are just another instance of blind human fiat trying to naturalize something immoral, unnatural and irrational. Insomuch as it is thus contrary to the truth it is also unjust.

 

[mek42]

Well, that’s like arguing: you said that this isn’t a round circle. We are just talking about circles here. Not* round* circles.

Since all circles are round, I take it to mean that for you, the Sacrement of Holy Matrimony is implied when you use the word marriage and, for clarity, that your use of the word marriage specifically does not include what the State calls civil marriage.

Thus we return to the fact that there is not a movement to redefine Holy Matrimony through external force.

 

[PRmerger]

Since all circles are round, I take it to mean that for you, the Sacrement of Holy Matrimony is implied when you use the word marriage and, for clarity, that your use of the word marriage specifically does not include what the State calls civil marriage.

Thus we return to the fact that there is not a movement to redefine Holy Matrimony through external force.

No. It is not always a sacrament. But if it is a marriage, it is a holy covenant.

 

[mek42]

No. It is not always a sacrament. But if it is a marriage, it is a holy covenant.

I was baptised Catholic at birth. My wife Lutheran. Our marriage is civil, presided by a judge. It has been made abundantly clear here that situations such as mine have no holy covenant, yet the State considers us to be married. Therefore your above conditional statement is not valid.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Are you suggesting that people are not trying to change what our understanding of marriage is?

I’ve not seen that any one is trying to change the understanding of the Sacrament of Matrimony and other religions concepts of marriage. What I have seen is that the statutes, laws, and definitions used for civil contract of marriage have been changed in various regions and countries. One can (and has) been changed separate from the other.

 

[davidv]

I’ve not seen that any one is trying to change the understanding of the Sacrament of Matrimony and other religions concepts of marriage. What I have seen is that the statutes, laws, and definitions used for civil contract of marriage have been changed in various regions and countries. One can (and has) been changed separate from the other.

This is a strawman. The purpose of marriage is not based on the Sacrament. It is based on the nature of men and women.
Any legalization of am arrangement that that is labeled marriage that does not include exclusively one man and one woman is a unnatural redefinition of marriage. It has nothing to to with exclusively religious concepts.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mek

**So it is Ok for homosexual children to be adopted by same sex parents? Should heterosexual parent then be forbidden from adopting homosexual children? Would need to wait until a child’s preferences are known before allowing adoption? **

Your assumption is that children from birth are homosexual. No gene for homosexuality has been proven to exist. A child should be assumed to have a heterosexual destiny. Such a child therefore has a right to heterosexually adoptive parents. Denying a child such a right is a hundred times worse than denying marriage to same-sex couples or denying same-sex couples the right to adopt heterosexual children.

Is this not common sense to you even without having a religion?

 

[mek42]

This is a strawman. The purpose of marriage is not based on the Sacrament. It is based on the nature of men and women.
Any legalization of am arrangement that that is labeled marriage that does not include exclusively one man and one woman is a unnatural redefinition of marriage. It has nothing to to with exclusively religious concepts.

Without religion you do not have that which is referred to as the natural definition. It has everything to do with religious concepts.

 

[PRmerger]

I was baptised Catholic at birth. My wife Lutheran. Our marriage is civil, presided by a judge. It has been made abundantly clear here that situations such as mine have no holy covenant, yet the State considers us to be married. Therefore your above conditional statement is not valid.

You seem to be confusing sacramental with covenantal.

Jews who are married do not have a sacramental marriage, but the Church has never said that their marriages are not holy or covenantal.

Similarly with you; your marriage is not sacramental. However, it may be holy and covenantal. We always use that as the default. Until proven otherwise.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This is a strawman. …]

I don’t think that it is. Would you mind reading through the series of messages to which I was responding. I think you may have missed the statement to which I was originally responding. I think you may be responding in a different context.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve not seen that any one is trying to change the understanding of the Sacrament of Matrimony and other religions concepts of marriage.

No one is proposing that the civil authorities want to change our understanding of the sacrament of matrimony, TS.

What you are trying to do is change our definition of marriage.

We oppose that. You have no more right to do that than you can declare yourself to be the Queen of England.

 

[PRmerger]

Without religion you do not have that which is referred to as the natural definition. It has everything to do with religious concepts.

That’s like saying: without math you do not have the ability to know what a circle is.

A circle is a circle, whether you separate it from math or not.

 

[mek42]

mek

**So it is Ok for homosexual children to be adopted by same sex parents? Should heterosexual parent then be forbidden from adopting homosexual children? Would need to wait until a child’s preferences are known before allowing adoption? **

Your assumption is that children from birth are homosexual. No gene for homosexuality has been proven to exist. A child should be assumed to have a heterosexual destiny. Such a child therefore has a right to heterosexually adoptive parents. Denying a child such a right is a hundred times worse than denying marriage to same-sex couples or denying same-sex couples the right to adopt heterosexual children.

Is this not common sense to you even without having a religion?

Assuming your last question is honest inquiry, no, it is far from common sense.

And you assume children are heterosexual at birth.

I truly hope that my precious little daughter is asexual until at least puberty.

Further, does this mean that single parents who are assisted in their child rearing by only other adults of the same gender but the child is opposite gender, is this situation then also child abuse?

 

[mek42]

You seem to be confusing sacramental with covenantal.

Jews who are married do not have a sacramental marriage, but the Church has never said that their marriages are not holy or covenantal.

Similarly with you; your marriage is not sacramental. However, it may be holy and covenantal. We always use that as the default. Until proven otherwise.

How can it be holy if the Church considers us living in sin? I thought sin and holy were strict opposites.