What Good is Marriage?

[Phaedra777]

The problem is that there are many religions that presume to speak for what God wants, and on many points, their claims to Truth are mutually incompatible. To someone in a different religion, "Who are these people who are not bound by God’s word? All they are doing is ignoring it, and thinking it doesn’t apply to them" is something they would say about you, just as you would say it about me.

It’s one thing to go around believing that your religion is true. It’s quite another to go around believing that your religion is a truism - and that nobody really doubts its Truth so much as they’re ignoring it.

And in the end, there is only one religion founded by God. All others are founded by humans–to make earthly life easier or themselves more important.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

Considering current divorce rates would it be fair to say that a spouse still may not stick around when the going gets tough?

Yes.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

And in the end, there is only one religion founded by God. All others are founded by humans–to make earthly life easier or themselves more important.

And as ASimon said there’s nothing wrong with believing that. It’s when you believe that everyone else knows that your religion is true but that they are choosing to ignore what they know to be true that you run in to problems.

 

[Phaedra777]

And as ASimon said there’s nothing wrong with believing that. It’s when you believe that everyone else knows that your religion is true but that they are choosing to ignore what they know to be true that you run in to problems.

The point is that God has written the truth into every human heart, so yes–they are choosing to ignore it.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

The point is that God has written the truth into every human heart, so yes–they are choosing to ignore it.

And that point of view is extremely arrogant. You have absolutely no way of knowing how others feel, their experiences, or how they may have struggled to believe.

 

[Phaedra777]

And that point of view is extremely arrogant. You have absolutely no way of knowing how others feel, their experiences, or how they may have struggled to believe.

Actually, I say it because every single former atheist I have known has said, while they claimed not to believe in God they eventually admitted, to themselves first, that they did and they were quite angry at Him.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Actually, I say it because every single former atheist I have known has said, while they claimed not to believe in God they eventually admitted, to themselves first, that they did and they were quite angry at Him.

There are people like that. I’ve known a few. Most of them are young or have had a terrible tragedy happen.

But then there are those of us who were raised religiously but never could believe. We tried, we read, we studied, we talked to friends and pastors, and no luck. You think we wanted to have to tell our families that we not only don’t believe in the religion that they are committed to and tried to raise us in, but that we don’t believe in god at all? Don’t you think a lot of us would like to believe in an eternal life of joy as opposed to rotting in the earth and our conciousness just ceasing to exist?

Furthermore, who would know a certain religion to be true but choose an eternity in hell?

 

[Darran]

And that point of view is extremely arrogant. You have absolutely no way of knowing how others feel, their experiences, or how they may have struggled to believe.

Is that idea of arrogance perhaps, objective?

Every civilization, in every part of the world, from all time haven’t just “taken” wives, they have married them before God (in any way they knew how).

It’s only the modern secular society that wants to take God out of the equation and can’t find any motive or point to anything in life apart from their own passions. Marriage is only marriage when it’s before God. With the exclusion of God, there is no marriage. There might be some sort of “union” referred to as “marriage”, but it isn’t. That’s the way it is.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Is that idea of arrogance perhaps, objective?

Every civilization, in every part of the world, from all time haven’t just “taken” wives, they have married them before God (in any way they knew how).

It’s only the modern secular society that wants to take God out of the equation and can’t find any motive or point to anything in life apart from their own passions. Marriage is only marriage when it’s before God. With the exclusion of God, there is no marriage. There might be some sort of “union” referred to as “marriage”, but it isn’t. That’s the way it is.

I’m fine with that outlook. (I’d have to be, I’m about to enter in to a marriage that the Catholic church sees as invalid.)

My wedding nor marriage will be religious, at all. It wouldn’t bother me in the least if everyone got a civil union through the state and people who wanted a religious union got married through a church. As long as my atheist wedding is treated the same legally as someone else’s Methodist wedding and that Methodist wedding is treated the same as a Catholic wedding and that Catholic wedding is treated the same as a Muslim wedding under our laws.

 

[Phaedra777]

Furthermore, who would know a certain religion to be true but choose an eternity in hell?

People who will not submit to legitimate authority (earthly or heavenly), people who are full of self-pride, and people who would rather be “right” than happy.

Courtesy of my former atheist friends. I find that I agree.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

My wedding nor marriage will be religious, at all.

Congratulations on your forthcoming union!

 

[Darran]

I’m fine with that outlook. (I’d have to be, I’m about to enter in to a marriage that the Catholic church sees as invalid.)

My wedding nor marriage will be religious, at all. It wouldn’t bother me in the least if everyone got a civil union through the state and people who wanted a religious union got married through a church. As long as my atheist wedding is treated the same legally as someone else’s Methodist wedding and that Methodist wedding is treated the same as a Catholic wedding and that Catholic wedding is treated the same as a Muslim wedding under our laws.

There’s a word there that has lost it’s definition though. Marriage is being married before God. Without God there is just a celebration amongst friends in the style of marriage, named a civil union. In actuality, there is nothing unified, only two names by local law. There is no bond. Does anything change the day before the wedding to the day after, apart from a facebook setting?

The important thing is in discerning how our actions are treated under God’s law, because apart from His there is nothing with any objective purpose or meaning anywhere.

 

[Taestron]

My own thoughts on the matter, probably stolen from somewhere else, is that the more commitment there is to a relationship the more love there is between the couple. Most people do not casually throw away the thing they have committed to, it might be seen as human nature that if you work at something and pour forth time, money, and effort, that you will go to more lengths to see success. A marriage is no difference. Under any definition of marriage you are committing something to the relationship, otherwise there is truly no reason to attach “marriage” to the relationship. If you are truly committed you will find excuses to love your partner. I believe part of the reason why the divorce rates are so high, is that marriage carries less of a commitment than it did in the past with the rise of prenups and the like. But a marriage is still the strongest commitment in society, so there is still reason to get married even if you do not believe in God. You could still achieve this commitment without getting married but with legal benefits and the fact of common-law unions, I don’t really see a reason not to get married.

I wonder if there are statistics comparing divorce rates with the break-up rates of monogamous couples who commit to each other for life. And if there are I would want to see whether or not there is a substantial difference.

 

[sw85]

With marriage there are certain legal benefits that are granted. And under many religions marriage is a requirement for a person to be allowed to engage in sex. But for some one that isn’t bound to what various religions have to say on marriage are there any benefits to marriage beyond the legal benefits that cannot be achieved without marriage?

I was talking to some one about this last night and we had a hard time identifying any. There are benefits to monogamy, but being married doesn’t guarantee your partner will be monogamous. Also an unmarried couple can be monogamous to. Any other benefits we explored were pretty much evaluated the same; not guaranteed in marriage and achievable outside of marriage.

Here’s the thing. What Catholics believe about marriage isn’t just something confined to Catholics. That is, there are no “Catholic marriages” and then “other marriages.” There’s just marriage.

So from the Catholic perspective, what is true of “Catholic marriages” is also true of everything else that could be said to be a “marriage.” Which means that, given that it’s good for Catholics to marry, it’s also good for non-Catholics to marry, in the same ways and for the same reasons. It confers sacramental grace, provides a means of redress for concupiscence, structures duty, and cements a permanent bond to allow for family formation, stability, and care.

So the good of marriage is the same. You may not agree, but the point is that what you believe doesn’t matter. The goods of marriage arise from human nature sealed by divine degree, and anyone’s refusal to assent to these beliefs matters precisely squat. The sky doesn’t fail to be blue for blind people.

 

[ProLepanto]

While this question is posted in the Philosophy section, it is still a Catholic forum, So forgive me if I answer it as such.

Assuming the “Good” of anything is more than just its adherence to our predilections, we must also maintain that said “Good” is thus dependent on at least one other measure.

We must necessarily also maintain that if said measure is unyielding (that is ineligible beyond just to your situation or mine) that it exists outside of perspective.

And so we are left with a measure that is intrapersonal in its application yet beyond us as individuals.
A constant, a Law.

Christians believe that this discernability of Good was gifted to us, and is present in a tradition stretching back to Moses and culminating in the direct revelation by God himself, Jesus Christ.

In accordance to this tradition, we find the Good verbatim as it relates to man and wife in Genesis.

Genesis 1:27 “From the beginning the Creator created them male and female… and it was very good”
Genesis 2:24 “For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and unite with his wife, and the two will be one flesh”
Mathew 19:5 “So it is that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined let man not separate”

As described by John Paul II, this is an appeal to the original legislation and thus to man’s original happiness before the fall. Thus the interpersonal affirmation being shown as the intent.
Ergo it is God’s Will for us to be happy, and we were designed to be permanently joined to one of the opposite sex, so Marriage is, by definition, The human Good.

 

[Darran]

Here’s the thing. What Catholics believe about marriage isn’t just something confined to Catholics. That is, there are no “Catholic marriages” and then “other marriages.” There’s just marriage.

So from the Catholic perspective, what is true of “Catholic marriages” is also true of everything else that could be said to be a “marriage.” Which means that, given that it’s good for Catholics to marry, it’s also good for non-Catholics to marry, in the same ways and for the same reasons. It confers sacramental grace, provides a means of redress for concupiscence, structures duty, and cements a permanent bond to allow for family formation, stability, and care.

Given, with invincible ignorance.

So the good of marriage is the same. You may not agree, but the point is that what you believe doesn’t matter. The goods of marriage arise from human nature sealed by divine degree, and anyone’s refusal to assent to these beliefs matters precisely squat. The sky doesn’t fail to be blue for blind people.

Problem point. Provided there is no possible way of knowing, any marriage before God is a marriage. A meeting to spite God is a different ballgame.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You may not agree, but the point is that what you believe doesn’t matter.

Actually, I’m quite willing to grant every thing you’ve just said without disagreement. But from this response and some of the previous ones this is what I’m seeing.

• Some responses point out what may or may not be benefits regardless of whether or not the parties involved are aware of them.
• Some of the responses make predictions on how some one would mentally process some of the claims of benefits put forth.

I think this response is of the first type. My expectation in how a non-Catholic would respond is that in general I don’t think by itself it would bring about a realization that that there are the other benefits of marriage (Since being told by some one is not the same as realization, though it can at times lead to a realization).

I guess I should say is that I’m looking for some at the very least may motivate some one to reconsider their stance on marriage. Not something necessarily convincing, but something that would motivate a person to stop for a moment and reconsider even if he or she settles on their original stance. I think that the response that Alberti_Devoveo gave that brought up consideration of the children might do this for those that are considering having kids. Though it may not be as effective to those that can’t or plan to not have kids.

 

[Lochias]

People’s actions and life decisions are driven by what they believe is true. Non Catholics won’t care about what the Church teaches if they don’t believe in the Church, and what they believe matters because that will drive their actions. So what they think does matter.

Like sw85 says, “The sky is still blue for blind people.” God knows what each person has to deal with, but in very basic terms? No, what they think doesn’t matter.

I don’t think this is an arrogant view to take. If God wants what’s best for everybody, and they just can’t see it, do you think He’s going to fault them for that? I don’t. Sacrifices and prayers on the part of those who DO know better go a long, long way to satisfying the debts that others unconsciously create for themselves and others.

People can do and say whatever they want, but in an era and a country (assuming one lives in the US) where information is very, very easy to come by, and examples of the Christian way to live are everywhere, people’s excuse of ignorance can also only go so far, depending on individual circumstance.

All that having been said, I understand what you’re saying, in terms of the actions they’re going to choose. I’m taking my stance because I think yours is a dangerous two or three steps away from relativism.

Suffice it to say: Their actions matter far, far less than God’s justice and mercy.

 

[Edward_H]

Marriage is the best way to order ourselves such that each becomes more than they were, that they become more FULLY themselves.

The way this is done is through total willing, mutual self-donation. A marriage is in fact that commitment personified and made real.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s interesting. I would love to hear your theory then on why despite my best efforts for years I just never could believe in god. There was no “rejection of truth” or following “what I want to believe” because I genuinely wanted to be a Christian, but I just could not believe.

Because faith, among other things, is an act of the will.

You have to will yourself first to believe in God. Then other things will follow.