The Purpose of Marriage

[tonyrey]

… 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.

It obviously cannot progress if you cannot explain the basis of your distinction between honorable and dishonorable motivations…

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Dating will reveal a person’s character.

No one who is an abuser later doesn’t act like an abuser earlier.

So don’t marry an abuser.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

Not to mention that some people’s bad sides don’t show up until things their life situation becomes awful; a person pleasant under other circumstances may become tragically abusive when confronted with heavy stress, traumatic experience, or deep personal loss. There was a Catholic couple whose wedding I attended that is now separated. They dated and lived together before getting married. After a few years of marriage they moved to a new city (the Army reassigned the wife to a new city) and the husband changed after feeling stressed all the time. (I know the reason for the change, but that detail isn’t necessary for this story) Skipping ahead after some disagreement/argument the guy told his wife that he could kill her and her mother and the police would never find the bodies and he struck her. Not quite the type of behaviour that showed up while they were dating. She had the police remove him from their housing and she and her son moved elsewhere. They are separated (but not divorced) but he’s now looking to get divorced so he can marry the girlfriend he’s had for the past few years. The second wedding won’t/can’t be a Catholic wedding.

For the scenario(s) that you’ve been describing some one in this state of existence is pretty much at a loss. If some one is found to have entered valid sacramental marriage there is no way to dissolve it. For this scenario it becomes important to differentiate between the civil contract or marriage and the Sacrament of Matrimony. The civil contract can be terminated. The couple can cease to cohabitate. But the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is considered a an dissoluble union formed between man, woman, and God. Without the declaration of nullity whether the separation is from a person being abusive or just from being a jerk the implication is unfortunate; the person cannot marry again without entering into what the church would see as an adulterous relationship.
Matthed 19:

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

 

[PRmerger]

Not to mention that some people’s bad sides don’t show up until things their life situation becomes awful; a person pleasant under other circumstances may become tragically abusive when confronted with heavy stress, traumatic experience, or deep personal loss.

Then I think it would be an astonishingly horrible and cruel thing to divorce a person after he has suffered a traumatic experience or deep personal loss.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Then I think it would be an astonishingly horrible thing to divorce a person after he has suffered a traumatic experience or deep personal loss.

It can be. But don’t forget that abuse is a key component of the scenario I’ve presented. And like you said:

Now, if he becomes an abuser, then you are required to protect yourself and your children and get out of that situation.

 

[PRmerger]

It can be. But don’t forget that abuse is a key component of the scenario I’ve presented. And like you said:

Not sure how this refutes what I am saying.

If someone suffers from a traumatic experience or deep personal loss it’s a terrifically unkind act to divorce him.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Not sure how this refutes what I am saying.

I’m not trying to refute what you are saying about the scenario that I think you have in mind as I think it is different than the scenario that I am describing.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not trying to refute what you are saying about the scenario that I think you have in mind as I think it is different than the scenario that I am describing.

Fair enough.

What ate you saying then regarding a person who has suffered a horrible personal tragedy?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What a[r]e you saying then regarding a person who has suffered a horrible personal tragedy?

That scenario is more general than what I am addressing. The key attribute of significance is the person becoming abusive. The abusive behavior may or may not have resulted from some other experience. If you remove the abuse element then it is no longer a scenario that matches what I am talking about.

 

[PRmerger]

That scenario is more general than what I am addressing. The key attribute of significance is the person becoming abusive. The abusive behavior may or may not have resulted from some other experience. If you remove the abuse element then it is no longer a scenario that matches what I am talking about.

So if a person becomes abusive, leave the situation.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So if a person becomes abusive, leave the situation.

Limiting access to the victim (whether it be spouse or child) and avoiding vulnerable situations are potential responses to some one being abusive. That could translate into not being in the presence of the abuser, only allowing supervised presence, or through other restrictions. It could be short term, long term, or permanent.

But I think you are asking me if I agree with the prescription from #734 on leaving. It’s not off the table for potential responses, especially if the abuser is posing a lethal threat. Do what is best for the family.

 

[mek42]

Dating will reveal a person’s character.

No one who is an abuser later doesn’t act like an abuser earlier.

So don’t marry an abuser.

If the abuser acted nice until after getting married, would this be grounds for naming the marriage invalid due to deceit on the abuser’s part?

Some sociopaths know how to act like nice people. They just are not nice people.

 

[tonyrey]

The topic is:

If it is a civil right, then it has the potential to include many other types of relationships as well. I do not think we are headed down the slippery slope just yet, but I do not see how the US can deny polyamorous marriages, or even adult incest marriages, IF marriage is defined as a constitutional right/privilege.

Why shouldn’t a person be married to an animal if marriage is no more than a human convention?

 

[PRmerger]

If the abuser acted nice until after getting married, would this be grounds for naming the marriage invalid due to deceit on the abuser’s part?

Some sociopaths know how to act like nice people. They just are not nice people.

I’m pretty sure that being married to a sociopath is grounds for an annulment.

 

[PRmerger]

Limiting access to the victim (whether it be spouse or child) and avoiding vulnerable situations are potential responses to some one being abusive. That could translate into not being in the presence of the abuser, only allowing supervised presence, or through other restrictions. It could be short term, long term, or permanent.

Egg-zactly.

But I think you are asking me if I agree with the prescription from #734 on leaving. It’s not off the table for potential responses, especially if the abuser is posing a lethal threat. Do what is best for the family.

Egg-zactly on this, too.

 

[inocente]

The topic is:

Agreed.

Why shouldn’t a person be married to an animal if marriage is no more than a human convention?

Animals are not citizens, are not able to give consent, and are not able to make vows.

Party animals excluded.

 

[siamus2k13]

No, not more (or less) concerned about religious marriage, though I think there is an obvious religious element.

I am interested in the constitutional right to marry, and whether it still serves its intended purpose in American society, whatever that purpose is or was.

God Bless America.

Current state of the union addresses, in a sense, pushed the religious element away.

For me, marriage always was highly influenced by God.

I guess a lot of it the comes from a common line said in marriage vows.

Until death, do us part…

 

[tonyrey]

Animals are not citizens, are not able to give consent, and are not able to make vows.

Party animals excluded.

Why shouldn’t a person be married to an animal if marriage is no more than a human convention?

 

[inocente]

Why shouldn’t a person be married to an animal if marriage is no more than a human convention?

It couldn’t happen in civil marriage unless the law was first changed to overcome the problems that animals are not citizens, can’t give consent and can’t make vows. It seems highly improbable that voters would approve such measures, that the legislature would entertain them, or the courts accept them.

On the other hand any cult could call it a religious marriage according to their supposed spirits or gods or whatnot.

So it appears that democratic human conventions provide by far the stronger safeguard here.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Why shouldn’t a person be married to an animal …

Various forms of religious animal have occurred between animals and humans (1, 2).

As for the civil contract of marriage, in the western world animals don’t meet the requirements for being contractible (some adult humans don’t meet these requirements either). Entities not meeting these requirements cannot engage in binding contracts. It’s not just specifically that animals can’t marry humans, it’s that animals can’t engage in contracts.

Once you find animals that can engage in contracts then you’ll have less obstacles between animals engaging in the civil contract of marriage.