Why should we continue to believe in marriage?

[styrgwillidar]

When they have not been abandoned by a spouse from a valid marriage–that is, when their spouse has died or their marriage was null-single parents can and do re-marry in ways that are not harmful to their children, and that in fact benefit both children and parents tremendously. The problem many Catholics run into is that there are too few others who want to marry someone without having a sexual relationship in the meantime, and that is particularly something that has to be avoided when one has children. I hope that you have an opportunity to perhaps meet someone who can be a wife to you and a mother to your children, though. Provided you are not bound by a marriage that was dissolved in civil court but cannot be dissolved in the eyes of God, it would not be any offense against your children to want that.

I am perhaps being too cautious, I actually have received a declaration of nullity. However, my kids are older and their Mom will always be their Mom. Another relationship could provide that good role model/example for relationshps though. We’ll see, man plans and God laughs.

But it gets back to believing in marriage, and I think marriage is greater than simply two people making vows before God. Almost implicit in that union is the foundation of a family, and I do believe that it is the best arrangement for children to be nurtured.

I realize that is not always possible, many have good reasons for divorce and actually are motivated more out of concern for their children then their own interests. I have nothing but respect for single mothers who have to face that decision and raise their children without the support of a husband/father in the home. Even perhaps choosing economic hardship for love of their children.

 

[marymary1975]

Another thing is that male-female marriage does not address the reality that many homes these days are NOT traditional nuclear families. Here is a great excerpt from BeyondMarriage.org:

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:

· Single parent households

· Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)

· Blended and extended families

· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

· Adult children living with and caring for their parents

· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives

· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

· Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS.

The current debate over marriage, same-sex and otherwise, ignores the needs and desires of so many in a nation where household diversity is the demographic norm. We seek to reframe this debate. Our call speaks to the widespread hunger for authentic and just community in ways that are both pragmatic and visionary.

calibobo I just saw the other threads you have and sincerely what I think you are doing is just trying to push an anti marriage agenda in here. Is quite obvious from all your posts that you have an agenda and you are just throwing things out to push it down people’s throats. I am sorry to tell you but you are in the wrong place to push your agenda. You are wasting your time.

 

[EasterJoy]

Blue eyed lady I am a little confused with your post. First do you have a fiancee or a husband? In your first post you are saying that your fiancee’s parents are divorced then you talk about your “husband” so which one is it. You can’t be both married and not married at the same time so make up your mind, what it is?

Then you talk about having no dad when you say your mother was divorced. I am sorry, maybe comes from the fact that I am the child of a real single mother …not married and no father from day one…but I have severe difficulty seeing a divorced woman as a real single.mother and a.child of divorce as having no father. If your mother was married then you have a dad who was your mother’s husband and who was in your life until the divorce, so yes you have a dad. That your dad is an irresponsible man who didn’t do what he was supposed to do doesn’t mean that you didn’t have a father. Also bear in mind that there are many situations that arise from divorce as child support etc that give a divorce woman a totally different status than the one of a real single mother so I don’t agree with the view that you.didn’t have a father.

Obviously your situation was better with your parent’s divorced as what your situation really is about is highly irresponsible father who doesn’t take care of his kids. And obviously having one responsible parent is better than having a parent who is plain irresponsible and a bad example, but the fact that your father was an irresponsible person and your mother made the best of the situation doesn’t mean that that situation is the ideal scenario for a child.

Just for the record, it is possible to have an invalid attempt at marriage without ill will or severe moral failure on anyone’s part. Her father may have had serious issues precluding his ability to be a husband and father that were none of his doing. That she was better off not having him in contact with her does not mean he did anything wrong by her. These things do happen. Maybe his dad did fail her through his own fault, but it is hard enough having a dad that wasn’t be there for you without having anyone make assumptions about him that may not be fair, that’s all I’m saying.

 

[EasterJoy]

I am perhaps being too cautious, I actually have received a declaration of nullity. However, my kids are older and their Mom will always be their Mom. Another relationship could provide that good role model/example for relationshps though. We’ll see, man plans and God laughs.

But it gets back to believing in marriage, and I think marriage is greater than simply two people making vows before God. Almost implicit in that union is the foundation of a family, and I do believe that it is the best arrangement for children to be nurtured.

I realize that is not always possible, many have good reasons for divorce and actually are motivated more out of concern for their children then their own interests. I have nothing but respect for single mothers who have to face that decision and raise their children without the support of a husband/father in the home. Even perhaps choosing economic hardship for love of their children.

I think that the single parent of the family usually has the best sense of whether or not to seek marriage when they are free to marry. If your sense is to wait, I would not argue with that. My comment was only meant to put the idea in your head that if God brings the right woman into your life for you and your family, it is OK to recognize her as being from God.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Blue eyed lady I am a little confused with your post. First do you have a fiancee or a husband? In your first post you are saying that your fiancee’s parents are divorced then you talk about your “husband” so which one is it. You can’t be both married and not married at the same time so make up your mind, what it is?

Then you talk about having no dad when you say your mother was divorced. I am sorry, maybe comes from the fact that I am the child of a real single mother …not married and no father from day one…but I have severe difficulty seeing a divorced woman as a real single.mother and a.child of divorce as having no father. If your mother was married then you have a dad who was your mother’s husband and who was in your life until the divorce, so yes you have a dad. That your dad is an irresponsible man who didn’t do what he was supposed to do doesn’t mean that you didn’t have a father. Also bear in mind that there are many situations that arise from divorce as child support etc that give a divorce woman a totally different status than the one of a real single mother so I don’t agree with the view that you.didn’t have a father.

Obviously your situation was better with your parent’s divorced as what your situation really is about is highly irresponsible father who doesn’t take care of his kids. And obviously having one responsible parent is better than having a parent who is plain irresponsible and a bad example, but the fact that your father was an irresponsible person and your mother made the best of the situation doesn’t mean that that situation is the ideal scenario for a child.

What a rude post. I’m sorry that my mom doesn’t qualify as a “real” single parent, and I’m going to go ahead and disagree with you when you say that I do have a dad. My father was a physically abusive alcoholic who my mom divorced when I was less than a year old. To this day I have still not seen him since.

As for husband/fiance, I’m a newlywed (just over a month) and I said fiance out of reflex.

 

[EasterJoy]

What a rude post. I’m sorry that my mom doesn’t qualify as a “real” single parent, and I’m going to go ahead and disagree with you when you say that I do have a dad. My father was a physically abusive alcoholic who my mom divorced when I was less than a year old. To this day I have still not seen him since.

As for husband/fiance, I’m a newlywed (just over a month) and I said fiance out of reflex.

I took her to mean “real” in the sense of whether or not you were born out of wedlock. Your mother was accomplished and loving in her care of you regardless of how it came to be that she was raising you alone, whether it was none of her fault that she was alone or even all of her fault. Whether she was at fault or he was or no one was, whether she was married to your father when you were conceived or not, she was the one who stepped up and saw to it that your needs were met and you were totally loved as you ought to have been. That is the kind of “real” that counts, absolutely. That doesn’t mean that differentiating between one way of being put into that situation or another is of no account in a discussion of the theory of the meaning of marriage.

Having said that, though, some men who father a child outside of wedlock are more faithful to their position in their child’s life than men who were married to the mother of their child and then abandoned ship. There are not just two baskets that fit every child’s situation, one with “married parents” and one with “unmarried parents”!

 

[marymary1975]

What a rude post. I’m sorry that my mom doesn’t qualify as a “real” single parent, and I’m going to go ahead and disagree with you when you say that I do have a dad. My father was a physically abusive alcoholic who my mom divorced when I was less than a year old. To this day I have still not seen him since.

As for husband/fiance, I’m a newlywed (just over a month) and I said fiance out of reflex.

Well it is exactly what I am saying, you do have a father what happens is that your father is a massive irresponsible and alcoholic. It is not the same as not having a father.and again in your case your mother made out the best out of a bad situation. The fact she was able to make the best out of it doesn’t mean that it is the ideal situation for a child.

And sorry if I sound rude, is just that I have a tendency to be very straight forward, and you sounded very inconsistent, plus I have real difficulty seeing the statement as I have no father by the child of a divorced as accurate because still your mother knows who he is and you know who is, legally he is your father and even if you haven’t seen him you can find him out versus I have no father which literally means I have no idea who my father is and there is no way in the world I can know who he is. there is a big difference there.

 

[57thDimension]

We know BlueEyedLady, and all of my friends who have grown up under divorced parents, have done just fine.

I believe when you say that, you mean “fine, compared to the norm.” But, the norm is to have divorced parents. That must be taken into account. By analogy: in some countries in the world, I would be in the top 1% wealthiest (by assets) - in the US, I don’t even come close. That’s basically the case with divorce - you’re doing “just fine,” but compared to “poorer” people.

+Sebastian

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Well it is exactly what I am saying, you do have a father what happens is that your father is a massive irresponsible and alcoholic. It is not the same as not having a father.and again in your case your mother made out the best out of a bad situation. The fact she was able to make the best out of it doesn’t mean that it is the ideal situation for a child.

And sorry if I sound rude, is just that I have a tendency to be very straight forward, and you sounded very inconsistent, plus I have real difficulty seeing the statement as I have no father by the child of a divorced as accurate because still your mother knows who he is and you know who is, legally he is your father and even if you haven’t seen him you can find him out versus I have no father which literally means I have no idea who my father is and there is no way in the world I can know who he is. there is a big difference there.

Why do you keep making statements that you know nothing about? Legally he never had any parental rights, I never met his family, and my life and what my mom went through to raise me wouldn’t have been any different if I was the product of a short term relationship.

 

[EasterJoy]

I believe when you say that, you mean “fine, compared to the norm.” But, the norm is to have divorced parents. That must be taken into account. By analogy: in some countries in the world, I would be in the top 1% wealthiest (by assets) - in the US, I don’t even come close. That’s basically the case with divorce - you’re doing “just fine,” but compared to “poorer” people.

+Sebastian

Why would she not have meant “fine”, period? To say that children need a father is not to say that there is any gap that fidelity, love, and the grace of God can’t bridge.

It is true that children without a father in the home are, statistically speaking, far more vulnerable to criminal behavior, bad academic performance, mental illness, promiscuity, and on and on. Even the secular researchers say this, and they are under some pressure to publish findings that divorce doesn’t hurt anybody. Their findings do not mean that every child who is more vulnerable than the norm to the hazards that face all of us while growing up cannot be given an exemplary home and upbringing. It just means it is less likely to happen because it is significantly harder to do.

Again, the family that was there for her are heroes. That is true of all good families, but in hers each one who loved her to adulthood took up even more than usual. Bravo to them, I say!

I’m not sure, though, if she realizes that she is not the typical case, but an exceptionally fortunate one. Children without fathers in their homes while they are growing up do not typically do as well as their peers who differ in nothing but that one thing. That also speaks volumes of her mother. Ideally, when you’re bringing up a child who is doing without someone that you can’t give them, you don’t spend their entire childhood reminding them that they don’t have that man around or that his absence is something you feel yourself. You do your best to fill the gap in a way so that they will feel as little of that loss as humanly possible. You talk about that gap when the child wants to talk about it, but otherwise you leave it alone and bear it as the adult. That is the most selfless thing to do.

 

[EasterJoy]

Well it is exactly what I am saying, you do have a father what happens is that your father is a massive irresponsible and alcoholic. It is not the same as not having a father.and again in your case your mother made out the best out of a bad situation. The fact she was able to make the best out of it doesn’t mean that it is the ideal situation for a child.

And sorry if I sound rude, is just that I have a tendency to be very straight forward, and you sounded very inconsistent, plus I have real difficulty seeing the statement as I have no father by the child of a divorced as accurate because still your mother knows who he is and you know who is, legally he is your father and even if you haven’t seen him you can find him out versus I have no father which literally means I have no idea who my father is and there is no way in the world I can know who he is. there is a big difference there.

Her father failed to be a husband and father, but he may have made more of the hand he was dealt than any of us did. We don’t know that he had the inner resources to have done better at all, while most of us would say of ourselves that we have made less of the grace given to us than what we have made of it. When someone is born without feet, it is easy to see that they’ll never walk normally without outside help and far more determination than is normally required of the rest of the walking world, which is obviously help that not everyone born without feet is given. When someone is born with an inner deficit, this is harder to see, but it still happens.

 

[marymary1975]

Why do you keep making statements that you know nothing about? Legally he never had any parental rights, I never met his family, and my life and what my mom went through to raise me wouldn’t have been any different if I was the product of a short term relationship.

But still is not the same. Your father’s name was on your birth certificate (if your mother is divorced your father’s name by law had to be in the certificate) just starting with that is a major difference. Even if his parental rights terminated (you mention he legally never had any parental rights, I am assuming he had his parental rights terminated which I clarify is not the same as your mother having full custody, and the only legal way that could happen is if there was a parental termination of rights process in the court which normally is done after a divorce and is a very long and difficult process as judges are very very reluctant to terminate parental rights) the child is still considered legitimate child that by itself creates a completely different situation and set of issues. While you probably not know him or his family, you do know his name, you can find him of you want, and you have access to knowledge about him. That means you do have a father what happens is that it was bad one who was never involved., but you do have it. I do think that of you had been the product of a sperm donor what your mother had gone through would have been very different starting by that she never would have been through a divorce process or legal termination of rights process (that would have changed many things) and you would have had a totally different set of issues, so no even if his involvememt was minimal it is never the same.

 

[marymary1975]

Her father failed to be a husband and father, but he may have made more of the hand he was dealt than any of us did. We don’t know that he had the inner resources to have done better at all, while most of us would say of ourselves that we have made less of the grace given to us than what we have made of it. When someone is born without feet, it is easy to see that they’ll never walk normally without outside help and far more determination than is normally required of the rest of the walking world, which is obviously help that not everyone born without feet is given. When someone is born with an inner deficit, this is harder to see, but it still happens.

To clarify, I am not saying there is no deficit at all. What I am.saying is, using the fert example, saying I have no feet when the person has physical feet but can’t walk is incorrect. I have no feet means that either the person was born without feet or they were amputated. If a person has feet but the feet have a defect then the person has a feet with a defect and the challenges each have are different.

 

[thewanderer]

To clarify, I am not saying there is no deficit at all. What I am.saying is, using the fert example, saying I have no feet when the person has physical feet but can’t walk is incorrect. I have no feet means that either the person was born without feet or they were amputated. If a person has feet but the feet have a defect then the person has a feet with a defect and the challenges each have are different.

That still doesn’t make sense. Kids born outside of marriage still have a mother and a father. Thats just basic biology. And there are plenty of them whose fathers play a much larger role in their life than BEL’s father played in hers and so had a father in a much truer way than BEL did (assuming you’re not talking biology in which case everyone has a father equally).

 

[marymary1975]

That still doesn’t make sense. Kids born outside of marriage still have a mother and a father. Thats just basic biology. And there are plenty of them whose fathers play a much larger role in their life than BEL’s father played in hers and so had a father in a much truer way than BEL did (assuming you’re not talking biology in which case everyone has a father equally).

No, I am speaking of a child where the father was just a sperm donor where the kid doesn’t know who is the father and has no way to know, and there has been zero father right after the day of conception. That is what I see as having no father. And I also do not think that an unmarried woman with a partner or that has the father of her children involved her kid’s life can be considered a real single mother because she is not parenting alone.

 

[EasterJoy]

No, I am speaking of a child where the father was just a sperm donor where the kid doesn’t know who is the father and has no way to know, and there has been zero father right after the day of conception. That is what I see as having no father. And I also do not think that an unmarried woman with a partner or that has the father of her children involved her kid’s life can be considered a real single mother because she is not parenting alone.

By that definition, BlueEyedLady has no father, because his contribution to her gestation and first year of life was, by her account, entirely negative–worse than not being there at all, because her father contributed nothing to his child and child’s mother but added stress and toxicity, until the mother had no choice but to cut off all contact. He may have issues that remove his culpability for entirely failing to be there as a father, but if he is as depicted, he was no father and no partner at all, or else worse than nothing at all.

To get back to the original question, marriage as a civil institution would not exist if natural affection was all that was needed to secure a family* and gain societal recognition *where the parents were willing to live together and raise the child in a shared household.

I had two friends, totally secular, ask me to explain why they ought to get “a piece of paper”. I pointed out that the piece of paper forces the rest of society to recognize that their commitment to each other is real. You formalize it because when you commit yourself, then you have standing to insist that your commitment be recognized by others. If you aren’t willing to make a formal commitment, then what standing do you have to have others recognize it? Why should your employer give health insurance to whatever guy happens to be living in your place today or move his stuff when the company pays to move you? Why should a hospital give information about someone to you when neither you nor that someone have given any formal recognition that you’re responsible for each other? If you won’t be formally connected when you pay taxes or enter into contracts, why should society make that connection when it is to the advantage of one or both or you to be connected? If you have not gone on record as having an exclusive sexual relationship, why should you expect to have exclusive rights to your children? Why should your sexual partner of long ago feel a duty to keep you in her life, when you made no commitment to be there for her and your children? If you want the rights of a father, then you have to bind yourself to the duties of a husband and father. Take the child, accept the mother; take the mother, accept the child. Take the child, accept the father; take the father, accept the child. It is right, for the sake of children and for the healthy perpetuation of our race and our societal covenants in particular, that society try to make this commitment legally binding, rather than just a matter of trust or contract law between private parties.

Civil marriage exists in order to make a formal connection between two people with the capacity to become parents but also between the couple and the society which will have to accept their children one day as citizens, because society has found it is constantly being asked to decide whether to recognize the rights between parents and between parents and children and required to cope with citizens who of course carry the repercussions of their upbringing into the public square. Without marriage, some people would claim these rights when it was to their advantage, but then deny their responsibilities when the relationship was not to their advantage. The only reason civil marriage will die is if society has decided that married couples are so unwilling to be held to any of the responsibilities of marriage and biological parenthood that society has no incentive to offer benefits to the married. They will have to resort to holding people to the consequences of their unbridled biology, abandoning hope that there is sufficient civilization still in place to expect citizens to routinely rise to the demands of their formal commitments. At that point, what vestiges marriage keeps will become purely private contracts, and there will be no implied contract between the couple and society at large. We could live to see that day…but among those who are willing to submit to self-mastery and the demands of natural law, marriage will still exist as truly as it ever has.

 

[EasterJoy]

To clarify, I am not saying there is no deficit at all. What I am.saying is, using the fert example, saying I have no feet when the person has physical feet but can’t walk is incorrect. I have no feet means that either the person was born without feet or they were amputated. If a person has feet but the feet have a defect then the person has a feet with a defect and the challenges each have are different.

We also have to ask what fathers are denied when it is not demanded that fathers who are capable actually act according to their role in a child’s life. The child and mother are not the only ones who miss out when fathers fail to be fathers. The men miss out, too.

 

[57thDimension]

Why would she not have meant “fine”, period?

I didn’t say that she didn’t mean that, I just suggested that when people say “just fine” it is almost invariably based on subjective observation (and more easily accepted due to the tangibility of personal experience). The psychology of conformity also plays a part.

To say that children need a father is not to say that there is any gap that fidelity, love, and the grace of God can’t bridge.

Yes, that’s true, but “can,” “will,” and “likely to” are usually quite distinct in practice. Anyhow, I don’t believe I was suggesting anything for or contrary the above.

It is true that children without a father in the home are, statistically speaking, far more vulnerable to criminal behavior, bad academic performance, mental illness, promiscuity, and on and on. Even the secular researchers say this, and they are under some pressure to publish findings that divorce doesn’t hurt anybody. Their findings do not mean that every child who is more vulnerable than the norm to the hazards that face all of us while growing up cannot be given an exemplary home and upbringing. It just means it is less likely to happen because it is significantly harder to do.

Yes, exactly.

+Sebastian

 

[southernwriter]

Marriage is the best way to start and sustain a family. Studies have shown that kids are healthier when they live in families with two parents (one of each gender), and they don’t get divorced. It’s important to make the decision to stay married unless there’s a really good reason to divorce. I do think that abuse would be a good reason to divorce and I think it can probably be annulled. There’s a debate as to whether adultery gives the green light to divorce. Other than that, I would say divorce is inexcusable for the most part.