The Purpose of Marriage

[davidv]

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.

Post marriage, none of the new environments/behaviors invalidate the covenant that was entered into at the time of the wedding.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

There can hardly be anything more nebulous than:

If you say so.

It does nothing whatsoever to further the discussion - and it is certainly not “an attempt at choosing an interpretation”…

And what is nebulous about:

The distinction between honorable and dishonorable motivations is determined by whether or not the intended** consequences **are altruistic/mutually beneficial.

?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

No one needs to live in the same house with a verbally abusive spouse.

 

[mek42]

No one needs to live in the same house with a verbally abusive spouse.

But if not reconciled the nonabusive spouse would need to live, essentially, a single life to remain good and not the Church’s eyes, am I understanding correctly?

So, someone would be faced with the choice of eschewing their vocation and remaining in community with the Church or following their vocation, married life, but in exile from the Church, all due to the evil of a different person? Do I have the gist of things?

 

[PRmerger]

But if not reconciled the nonabusive spouse would need to live, essentially, a single life to remain good and not the Church’s eyes, am I understanding correctly?

Yes.

Is there something you find odious about the single life, mek?

So, someone would be faced with the choice of eschewing their vocation and remaining in community with the Church or following their vocation, married life, but in exile from the Church, all due to the evil of a different person? Do I have the gist of things?

Not even close, mek.

The choice is to remain true to the vows you made before God and your community, and live in continence until you reconcile…or commit adultery.

It’s really no different from the choice you have right now as a person in a committed relationship. Let’s say you find a new lover. The choice you have is to eschew your commitment and pursue the love of your life…or follow your commitment, married life, but in exile from the love of your life.

What’s the difference?

You have made a commitment, and no matter what new situations may attract your eye, you have the choice to stay true to your vow, or renege on it.

 

[mek42]

Yes.

Is there something you find odious about the single life, mek?

Not even close, mek.

The choice is to remain true to the vows you made before God and your community, and live in continence until you reconcile…or commit adultery.

It’s really no different from the choice you have right now as a person in a committed relationship. Let’s say you find a new lover. The choice you have is to eschew your commitment and pursue the love of your life…or follow your commitment, married life, but in exile from the love of your life.

What’s the difference?

You have made a commitment, and no matter what new situations may attract your eye, you have the choice to stay true to your vow, or renege on it.

The key difference is that my spouse has not become verbally abusive of me.

Anyhow, does this position of the Church differ in the case of physical or sexual abuse of children?

 

[PRmerger]

The key difference is that my spouse has not become verbally abusive of me.

The point is that you, in a committed relationship, are committed. Even if you wish to pursue a new love interest, you can’t.

Because you have made a commitment.

Anyhow, does this position of the Church differ in the case of physical or sexual abuse of children?

Do you mean does the Church say you can divorce and re-marry if your spouse abused your child?

I’m not sure why you would think that abuse of a child would therefore make adultery permissible??

 

[mek42]

The point is that you, in a committed relationship, are committed. Even if you wish to pursue a new love interest, you can’t.

Because you have made a commitment.

Yet again, there is a difference between whimsically flitting from romance to romance (the connotation I am receiving from your posts) and choosing to extricate oneself from an abusive relationship (what I started off posting in this particular exchange of discussion). Very few relationship commitments are unilateral. Were I to become verbally abusively to my wife, I hope she would leave - this is a hope born of my love for her. After a time, if I showed not even intent to try to change, the commitment would perish.

Do you mean does the Church say you can divorce and re-marry if your spouse abused your child?

I’m not sure why you would think that abuse of a child would therefore make adultery permissible??

So, to make sure I understand, say a man and woman are granted Holy Matrimony, let us say that there is no reason for it not to be valid at the time of granting the sacrament. Then, this couple has a child or perhaps multiple children. Then, one of the parents abuses at least one of the children in a way that a repeat of the abuse is simply unacceptable and the other parent (the caretaker parent, as opposed to the abuser parent) physically leaves with the children.

Some time passes and it is clear that the abuser parent is not fit to raise children - that the situation is irreconcilable. In this case, to be in communion with the Church, the caretaker parent must be, de facto, a single parent. Is this a correct understanding?

 

[PRmerger]

Yet again, there is a difference between whimsically flitting from romance to romance (the connotation I am receiving from your posts) and choosing to extricate oneself from an abusive relationship (what I started off posting in this particular exchange of discussion).

No. I have never posited a whimsical situation.

I have presented a case in which you want to be with another person. Very badly.

Even you seem to think that your vow means that you cannot indulge your desires, and that you must remain true to your obligation to remain faithful.

You are obligated to do this, because you have made a vow, even if you may have a reason to leave (“but I really, really love my mistress!”)

So I don’t see much difference in what you feel obligated to observe and what another person who also may have a reason (“but he is really, really mean to me!”) ought to be obligated to observe.

Very few relationship commitments are unilateral. Were I to become verbally abusively to my wife, I hope she would leave - this is a hope born of my love for her. After a time, if I showed not even intent to try to change, the commitment would perish.

Do you think that she would say, “If mek42 were to become sexually attracted to his student, I would hope that he leaves me”?

Or would she say, “I know mek42 made a commitment to me, and even if he’s attracted to someone else, we need to work on our relationship and stick it out.”

So, to make sure I understand, say a man and woman are granted Holy Matrimony, let us say that there is no reason for it not to be valid at the time of granting the sacrament. Then, this couple has a child or perhaps multiple children. Then, one of the parents abuses at least one of the children in a way that a repeat of the abuse is simply unacceptable and the other parent (the caretaker parent, as opposed to the abuser parent) physically leaves with the children.

Some time passes and it is clear that the abuser parent is not fit to raise children - that the situation is irreconcilable. In this case, to be in communion with the Church, the caretaker parent must be, de facto, a single parent. Is this a correct understanding?

Yes. They have made a vow, and are obligated to remain faithful to this vow.

Just like you are obligated to be with your wife, even if you feel attracted to someone else.

That’s what a vow is.

 

[mek42]

No. I have never posited a whimsical situation.

I have presented a case in which you want to be with another person. Very badly.

Even you seem to think that your vow means that you cannot indulge your desires, and that you must remain true to your obligation to remain faithful.

You are obligated to do this, because you have made a vow, even if you may have a reason to leave (“but I really, really love my mistress!”)

So I don’t see much difference in what you feel obligated to observe and what another person who also may have a reason (“but he is really, really mean to me!”) ought to be obligated to observe.

Do you discount the phenomenon of verbal abuse?

I do not agree with your analysis of my personal situation regarding the vow and the obligation. The relationship preceded the vow. The source of my obligation in our relationship is the relationship itself - the mutual respect we have for each other. The vow would not exist without those - it is almost mere formality. In fact, as I recall, the primary impetus to change our legal status was health insurance - at my (then) cohabiting girlfriend’s work, same sex people could extend health insurance benefits to a domestic partner, but heteros had to be married. A clear case of discrimination, in my opinion.

This was not the only reason, but were we able to share said health insurance as domestic partners then, I do not know if we would have changed our status right then, we might have waited a bit.

Do you think that she would say, “If mek42 were to become sexually attracted to his student, I would hope that he leaves me”?

Or would she say, “I know mek42 made a commitment to me, and even if he’s attracted to someone else, we need to work on our relationship and stick it out.”

Again, I consider domestic violence and lust to be completely different scenarios and do not see much value in attempting to equate the two.

Yes. They have made a vow, and are obligated to remain faithful to this vow.

Just like you are obligated to be with your wife, even if you feel attracted to someone else.

That’s what a vow is.

So, how is a nurturing opposite gender from primary caregiver parent to be obtained? (If the caregiver parent must remain in a state of separation from the abuser parent in perpetuity to prevent recurrence of abuse.) However it is obtained, such influence can also be obtained from two same sex guardians / adoptive parents in the same fashion. Since there are situations where the Church demands a child be raised by a single parent, it seems that lack of opposite gender parental influence is a weak argument against SSM.

And, yet again, extramarital lustful thoughts are completely different from protecting a child from abuse.

 

[BOSS10L]

Marriage is meaningless when it is divorced from the union of a man and a woman whose love ensures the preservation of society.

You wanna set your way-back machine and go tell the early church that? Do some research. They married same-sex couples.

 

[josh987654321]

You wanna set your way-back machine and go tell the early church that? Do some research. They married same-sex couples.

hahaha, no offense, but I find that very hard to believe, got any sources for us?

 

[josh987654321]

.

Do you believe in moral relativsim ThinkingSapien? or even relativism in general?

 

[tonyrey]

Marriage is meaningless when it is divorced from the union of a man and a woman whose love ensures the preservation of society.

Unsupported assertions are worthless…

 

[PRmerger]

You wanna set your way-back machine and go tell the early church that? Do some research. They married same-sex couples.

You’ve been duped, BOSS. You read something on the internet and instead of applying a scholarly critical eye to it, you accepted that nonsense with blind faith.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you discount the phenomenon of verbal abuse?

No, I don’t.

But I think that can be easily remedied by this: don’t marry someone who’s verbally abusive. That’s what dating is for.

I do not agree with your analysis of my personal situation regarding the vow and the obligation. The relationship preceded the vow. The source of my obligation in our relationship is the relationship itself - the mutual respect we have for each other.

Sure. This is very Catholic.

Again, I consider domestic violence and lust to be completely different scenarios and do not see much value in attempting to equate the two.

But the obligation remains the same.

If you make a vow, it is an oath that you ought to stand by.

Similarly, if your wife, God forbid, were to suddenly fall ill and require 24 hour care, you would be obligated to remain married to her, consigned to the “single life” for the duration of her life.

It’s just what obligation and vows and oaths and marriage is about. And thank God for this obligation, no?!! It elevates us and teaches us about true love and denial of the self.

So, how is a nurturing opposite gender from primary caregiver parent to be obtained? (If the caregiver parent must remain in a state of separation from the abuser parent in perpetuity to prevent recurrence of abuse.)

That’s a different question.

It makes no sense to say, “The Church’s position on divorce and re-marriage is wrong because if I marry an abuser and divorce him, how will my child receive masculine nurturing?”

That’s like a child saying “I think you need to change the rules about no TV during the schoolweek because how am I to know what I want for Christmas? I need to see the advertisements to get an idea, right?!”

However it is obtained, such influence can also be obtained from two same sex guardians / adoptive parents in the same fashion. Since there are situations where the Church demands a child be raised by a single parent, it seems that lack of opposite gender parental influence is a weak argument against SSM.

The Church makes no such demands.

And, yet again, extramarital lustful thoughts are completely different from protecting a child from abuse.

But the obligation remains the same. Even if you want a different situation, you cannot leave your vows behind.

That’s the same, no matter if it’s a sexual urge you want to scratch, or an abusive spouse.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There can hardly be anything more nebulous than:
ThinkingSapien;11117482:

If you say so

Beyond being an acknowledgement of what you said there’s not too much additional meaning to apply to it.

It does nothing whatsoever to further the discussion - and it is certainly not “an attempt at choosing an interpretation”…

It doesn’t, and I didn’t think the branch of the discussion would get much further than the earlier branches in this thread on the purpose of sex or evolution and advancement.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Do you believe in moral relativsim ThinkingSapien? or even relativism in general?

If you are asking me whether I take the stance that there exists no view points that are factual (relativism) then I would say that isn’t descriptive of my stance. I don’t think that Moral Relativism is descriptive of my stance either.

You might get a better assessment from reading some of my previous comments in the threads touching on morality.

Society and Objective Morality 2]
Morality without God?
Why are discussions about morality so futile?

 

[mek42]

I originally discussed a case where a spouse became abusive after marriage. That sometime after marrying, the abuser decided to become abusive. Therefore dating would not have revealed this future choice.

 

[BOSS10L]

You’ve been duped, BOSS. You read something on the internet and instead of applying a scholarly critical eye to it, you accepted that nonsense with blind faith.

Oh the absolute irony. Thanks for the fantastic laugh.

Switch out BOSS with PRmerger, and on the Internet with in the Bible, and you’ve just explained all of religion.