The Purpose of Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SextusEmpiricus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
Do you believe the purpose of marriage is amoral, i.e. neither good nor evil?
Click to expand...
If purpose means the same as “motivation” or “intent” the answer to your question may be contingent on factors that may vary on a case by case basis. (talking about “civil marriage” here).
 
ThinkingSapien said:
If purpose means the same as “motivation” or “intent” the answer to your question may be contingent on factors that may vary on a case by case basis. (talking about “civil marriage” here).
Click to expand...
  1. Do you believe marriage is based solely on human conventions?
  2. In other words does it have no moral implications?
  3. For that matter does morality consist solely of human conventions?
 
tonyrey said:
  1. Do you believe marriage is based solely on human conventions?..]3. For that matter does morality consist solely of human conventions?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you are asking. Could you juxtapose something that is a matter of human convention to something that is of non-human convention so I can have a better understanding of what you are asking me?
tonyrey said:
  1. In other words does it have no moral implications?
Click to expand...
If I heard that John and Jane (people I’ve never met) got married and if I am totally ignorant of their motivations or intentions for getting married then I could only say that I don’t have a sufficient amount of information to perform a moral evaluation of their marriage. People can get married with honorable and dishonorable motivations. That would have some impact on how I would evaluate the marriage. Though I’m not usually in the business of looking at people’s marriages and dichotomizing them as moral and immoral.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
I’m not sure what you are asking. Could you juxtapose something that is a matter of human convention to something that is of non-human convention so I can have a better understanding of what you are asking me?

If I heard that John and Jane (people I’ve never met) got married and if I am totally ignorant of their motivations or intentions for getting married then I could only say that I don’t have a sufficient amount of information to perform a moral evaluation of their marriage. People can get married with honorable and dishonorable motivations. That would have some impact on how I would evaluate the marriage. Though I’m not usually in the business of looking at people’s marriages and dichotomizing them as moral and immoral.
Click to expand...
The answer to your question is answered in your distinction between honorable and dishonorable motivations. How do you decide whether a motivation is one or the other?
And is your decision valid for everyone?
 
tonyrey said:
The answer to your question is answered in your distinction between honorable and dishonorable motivations. How do you decide whether a motivation is one or the other?
And is your decision valid for everyone?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately since we don’t have access to the minds of others it’s a best guess effort. Situations can arise in which one with exploitative motivations may behave in a manner that is indistinguishable from behaviours motivated from mutual interest or altruism.
 
When my wife and I decided to move from cohabitation to marriage (civil, so, to some, no change) we were hesitant. We saw many snarky crabby pants marriages around us and thought that once married, it would be logistically more difficult to break up, thus offering a disincentive to not be total jerks to each other when angry or in disagreement.
 
Portofino said:
A couple of questions to the group on this topic:

----the most noteworthy marriage in history, that between Mary and Joseph, was never consummated and I believe there was never any intention to consummate the marriage in its sexual aspect. Please explain the morality of this, from a Catholic viewpoint – is it a case of “special dispensation” on the part of God?
Click to expand...
I don’t know about the claim that “the most noteworthy marriage in history” was the relationship between Mary and Joseph. Where did you get that idea?
 
Portofino said:
A couple of questions to the group on this topic:

…

Insofar as posters on this thread have been considering the question of marriage vis-a-vis sexuality – and whether the two can ever be separated, as they seemingly were in Mary and Joseph’s marriage - -these questions suddenly occurred to me.
Click to expand...
You have a profound misunderstanding of the Incarnation, my friend…
 
stewstew03 said:
I don’t know about the claim that “the most noteworthy marriage in history” was the relationship between Mary and Joseph. Where did you get that idea?
Click to expand...
I didn’t understand your point. I thought is he saying Mary and Joseph were fictional not historical? Or that they weren’t married? Or that their relationship was not noteworthy? :confused:
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Unfortunately since we don’t have access to the minds of others it’s a best guess effort. Situations can arise in which one with exploitative motivations may behave in a manner that is indistinguishable from behaviours motivated from mutual interest or altruism.
Click to expand...
The possibility of being deceived doesn’t alter the fact that the distinction between honorable and dishonorable motivations is determined by whether or not the intended consequences are altruistic/mutually beneficial, i.e. objective reality rather than subjective opinions. In other words morality does not consist solely of human conventions.
 
tonyrey said:
The possibility of being deceived doesn’t alter the fact that the distinction between honorable and dishonorable motivations is determined by whether or not the intended consequences are altruistic/mutually beneficial, i.e. objective reality rather than subjective opinions. In other words morality does not consist solely of human conventions.
Click to expand...
If you say so 🤷
 
mek42 said:
When my wife and I decided to move from cohabitation to marriage (civil, so, to some, no change) we were hesitant. We saw many snarky crabby pants marriages around us and thought that once married, it would be logistically more difficult to break up, thus offering a disincentive to not be total jerks to each other when angry or in disagreement.
Click to expand...
I find that the grace offered in the Sacraments helps us not be total jerks to each other when angry or in disagreement.
 
PRmerger said:
I find that the grace offered in the Sacraments helps us not be total jerks to each other when angry or in disagreement.
Click to expand...
If by “us” you mean you and your spouse personally, then I am happy for you.
 
tonyrey said:
In a philosophical discussion that is hardly an adequate response…
Click to expand...
If you feel my response is outside of the realm of adequate I’m okay with that. I find what ever it is that you are getting at to be a bit nebulous. I’ve made an attempt at choosing an interpretation but I’m not quite sure that my interpretation aligns with your intended meaning. I’m content to acquiesce and let you speak in the absence of anything that I can identify that I either agree or disagree with.
 
For Catholic Matrimony, if one party later rejects that Sacremental grace and becomes a raging jerk., is this grounds for terminating the marital relationship?
 
mek42 said:
For Catholic Matrimony, if one party later rejects that Sacremental grace and becomes a raging jerk., is this grounds for terminating the marital relationship?
Click to expand...
A jerk? No. That’s why it’s called a vow. A sacred oath you make before God and the community. It’s a vow, mek.

Now, if he becomes an abuser, then you are required to protect yourself and your children and get out of that situation.
 
mek42 said:
For Catholic Matrimony, if one party later rejects that Sacremental grace and becomes a raging jerk., is this grounds for terminating the marital relationship?
Click to expand...
Also note that terminating a relationship doesn’t necessarily translate into both parties being eligible for marrying some other party. If the two can reconcile their conflicts and decide to get back together than that’s great! If the Catholic Church examines the marriage and finds that it didn’t meet the requirements of a valid Sacramental marriage then an annulment can be granted and marriage with another is possible since the Sacrament of Matrimony had not really been received. But if the marriage was found to be valid sacramental marriage and one or both parties decide to separate there’s no establishing the sacrament of marriage with a new party. That would be adultery ( Mark 10:11-12). They could still engage in a Civil marriage but this isn’t something that would found to be valid by the Catholic church and would make you ineligible for communion; valid Sacramental Marriages can’t be dissolved.
 
How about a verbally abusive situation? The only restraint on marital anger being failure to engage in physical assault, but hurtful words are frequent and engineered to cause pain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top