With no consummation requirement, wouldn't SS"M" potentially include friends who have a non-sexual relationship?

[LeafByNiggle]

Love is not required of marriage under the natural law.

I did not say love was required under natural law. I said it has always been a normal part of marriage, maybe not as a prerequisite, but as an expected consequence of being married. Marriages that are totally without love after many years are abnormal, and always have been abnormal.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Because history

I mean at the start of the marriage, it used to mostly be just duty.

Consent doesn’t require love at all.

I think the irony is people are claiming that marriage requiring love is natural law despite it being modern relativism.

Duty is love; it is the natural response to love. Duty and sacrifice only finally make sense in reference to love.

We shouldn’t caricature ancient marriages as devoid of love, especially Medieval Christian ones. Lacking a romantic courtship perhaps. But the expectation was that the couple would dutifully love, serve and honour each other. The idea being that just about any two people, putting in a reasonable effort, could learn to. Christian habit and formal custom most certainly tended toward authentic love of the other. The New Testament is rather clear that husbands must love their wives, no doubt in opposition to the temptation to treat wives as mere property or instruments (means to an end) but rather as ends in themselves.

The idea that romantic love was the ideal and eventually normative prerequisite for marriage is a fruit of Christian doctrine and belief in regards to marriage, human nature and God’s intention. I can’t think of any other society that even entertained it seriously, given how marriage was so dominated by political, economic and social influences. I think the idea that two (or more) men or two (or more) women could somehow marry each other because they are fond of each other is a miscarriage of the Christian belief or ideal about married love. Other societies didn’t -and largely still don’t, except where they have been thoroughly Westernized- accept or are even willing to entertain the idea.

That being said, the homosexualist ideology is and always has been radically opposed to marriage as an institution. The concept of consummation is part and parcel of marriage and traditional marriage logic, culture or thinking. Consequently I expect homosexualists will want and probably demand the concept be removed from the law altogether.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I just want to make sure I’m following what you are saying.

The bulk of current traditional marriage advocates take for granted, along with SSM advocates, that romantic feelings are necessary to the meaning of marriage?

Yes–I think folks on both sides of the issue these days make the same basic assumption about marriage: that it’s predicated on the couple’s love for each other.

And that this is ironic because the traditional understanding of marriage is based on consent between parties?

Yes–I think the traditional understanding of marriage was that it wasn’t predicated on the couple’s love for each other or on what the couple wanted, but upon what the couple’s families wanted, or on what was socially or culturally needed or required of the couple and their families. Love and romance could blossom between the two people in the couple after they were married, but it wasn’t required for the marriage itself. All that was required was consent to meet the duties and obligations that your family, your time and your society thrust upon you, for good or ill.

Is this another way of saying that since marriage hasn’t been lived according to the “natural law” way for some time, SSM is just the natural outcome?

You could make that argument re: natural law (and I’d be interested in seeing it fleshed out!), but I don’t think I would be the one to make it–I think the criticisms of natural law thinking (such as that it assumes revelation while attempting to elide over the fact that assumptions have been made) are compelling enough to lay it aside. But that’s just me. The argument I would make, though, is that the same-sex marriage debate is a logical consequence of the way we’ve lived marriage for the past couple hundred years, and that this new way of living marriage represents a real break with a more traditional understanding of what marriage is about.

The form of marriage has been one man, one woman for some time, but with this new couple-ordered understanding of marriage (which comes directly out of enlightenment individualism), the man-woman form of marriage has become inessential. I believe that “traditional” marriage advocates are arguing for the traditional form as essential, but (with the rest of the culture) have actually jettisoned the traditional understanding that would support the essentiality of the traditional form. Subsequently, it’s not difficult to see why the arguments for “traditional” marriage tend not to gain ground in the public conversation on marriage: since everyone basically agrees that marriage is about the couple, an argument for an essential form of marriage that doesn’t take into consideration the diversity of couples that may wish to marry (man-woman, woman-woman, man-man) seems arbitrarily preferential or merely partisan…and thus less and less compelling.

I hope that made sense, TCEL. Thanks for asking for clarification!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[TARRAT]

Don’t know if this has been addressed in this thread because I didn’t follow the hole thing.
Consumation comes into effect even in the civil process as to whether a marriage can be annulled. So I guess consumation has some legal (although slight) significance.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Duty is love; it is the natural response to love. Duty and sacrifice only finally make sense in reference to love.

We shouldn’t caricature ancient marriages as devoid of love, especially Medieval Christian ones.

I think Joie is being blunt in order to make certain that his/her point is made, not in order to deny the existence of nuances to the argument.

But I don’t know that I agree with your characterization of duty, here. It is possible to do one’s duty without love (because of coercion or fear, or out of a sense of obligation or expectation). To do one’s duty is not always to love: after we have done what is required of us, we should, indeed, expect to be called unprofitable servants should love not draw us to doing more.

But you are right that duty and sacrifice are part of love. Love can lead us to more completely fulfill our duties, and can make their fulfillment a joy, however onerous they might be. Personally, though I would replace “duty” with “responsibility” where love is concerned. That may just be a semantic quibble that changes nothing of the argument, but I find it more meaningful.

But the expectation was that the couple would dutifully love, serve and honour each other. The idea being that just about any two people, putting in a reasonable effort, could learn to. Christian habit and formal custom most certainly tended toward authentic love of the other. The New Testament is rather clear that husbands must love their wives, no doubt in opposition to the temptation to treat wives as mere property or instruments (means to an end) but rather as ends in themselves.

Yes, I think that was the ideal–putting self aside, learning to love the other for their own sake. But that’s precisely where we’ve gone wrong with respect to marriage: we put the cart before the horse. We expect the fruit of marriage to be present at the start. We insist that this love be there first and then assume that it is–and when we discover it actually isn’t there, we get divorced instead of learning self-sacrifice and acting accordingly. Consequently, we become unable to discern a mature love from a fleeting fancy–now, either will do where marriage is concerned.

The idea that romantic love was the ideal and eventually normative prerequisite for marriage is a fruit of Christian doctrine and belief in regards to marriage, human nature and God’s intention.

But again, this romantic love was not something assumed from the start. The idea that romance is a prerequisite for marriage is not a Christian concept, but reflects a pre-occupation with individualism typical of “enlightenment” thinking. The idea is this: “I shouldn’t be bound by what my culture, my social status or my family think of what my duty is–I should pursue what I feel is best for me. I will marry whomever I desire, the one I love.” And with the collapse of traditional culture following the American and French revolutions, this sort of thinking obtained more and more. It’s not Christian thinking at all.

That being said, the homosexualist ideology is and always has been radically opposed to marriage as an institution.

I think you’re confusing “homosexualist” with “individualist”. I don’t know of any normative “homosexualist” ideology, so can’t really argue one way or the other until I’ve seen what it is you’re referring to, but I do know that the root of the concerns of most special/partisan interests is a devotion to individualism and individual identity concerns that are disguised as a concern for the tribe. For what it’s worth, homosexual folks that I know are not radically opposed to marriage as an institution–the idea that marriage is a burdensome shackle on individual ambition is a post-enlightenment sort of invention, not a “homosexualist” one.

The concept of consummation is part and parcel of marriage and traditional marriage logic, culture or thinking. Consequently I expect homosexualists will want and probably demand the concept be removed from the law altogether.

It used to be part and parcel of marriage, but is no longer. As has been pointed out with respect to civil marriage, consummation is only an issue when divorce is on the table. Otherwise, whether or not a marriage is consummated has no effect on the validity or legal reality of the marriage in the eyes of the state.

Not knowing any homosexualists personally, I can’t really respond to your inference regarding their demands. But I don’t know any homosexuals who devote any of their time to thinking about consummation issues, let alone any homosexuals who would be interested enough to articulate a demand concerning those issues. But since consummation is already not an issue with the state with regard to the day-to-day validity of a marriage, I don’t imagine that many homosexuals will see it as an issue for them either.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[clem456]

Does “vocation”, more accurately that “duty”, describe the primordial Christian call to marriage?
Duty has such a begrudging and minimalist connotation.
Vocation is a call from God to participate in his life, it promises the fullness of everything God’s life has to offer us.

2331 "God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image . . … God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion."115

“God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them”;116 He blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply”;117 …

If a couple cannot accept the fullness of this vocation, they may have a sense of duty together, or they may have the “fluff”, but they may not experience everything the vocation promises them.

 

[TCEL]

Grace & Peace!

Yes–I think folks on both sides of the issue these days make the same basic assumption about marriage: that it’s predicated on the couple’s love for each other.

Yes–I think the traditional understanding of marriage was that it wasn’t predicated on the couple’s love for each other or on what the couple wanted, but upon what the couple’s families wanted, or on what was socially or culturally needed or required of the couple and their families. Love and romance could blossom between the two people in the couple after they were married, but it wasn’t required for the marriage itself. All that was required was consent to meet the duties and obligations that your family, your time and your society thrust upon you, for good or ill.

You could make that argument re: natural law (and I’d be interested in seeing it fleshed out!), but I don’t think I would be the one to make it–I think the criticisms of natural law thinking (such as that it assumes revelation while attempting to elide over the fact that assumptions have been made) are compelling enough to lay it aside. But that’s just me. The argument I would make, though, is that the same-sex marriage debate is a logical consequence of the way we’ve lived marriage for the past couple hundred years, and that this new way of living marriage represents a real break with a more traditional understanding of what marriage is about.

The form of marriage has been one man, one woman for some time, but with this new couple-ordered understanding of marriage (which comes directly out of enlightenment individualism), the man-woman form of marriage has become inessential. I believe that “traditional” marriage advocates are arguing for the traditional form as essential, but (with the rest of the culture) have actually jettisoned the traditional understanding that would support the essentiality of the traditional form. Subsequently, it’s not difficult to see why the arguments for “traditional” marriage tend not to gain ground in the public conversation on marriage: since everyone basically agrees that marriage is about the couple, an argument for an essential form of marriage that doesn’t take into consideration the diversity of couples that may wish to marry (man-woman, woman-woman, man-man) seems arbitrarily preferential or merely partisan…and thus less and less compelling.

I hope that made sense, TCEL. Thanks for asking for clarification!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Yes, what you are saying makes lots of sense to me! I’m not ready to give up yet on natural law though. I know just enough about natural law to know that I’m not qualified to speak about it. I apologize if you have already elaborated, but do you think there is any argument that can be made in our culture to support marriage between one man and one woman?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Does “vocation”, more accurately that “duty”, describe the primordial Christian call to marriage?
Duty has such a begrudging and minimalist connotation.
Vocation is a call from God to participate in his life, it promises the fullness of everything God’s life has to offer us.

If a couple cannot accept the fullness of this vocation, they may have a sense of duty together, or they may have the “fluff”, but they may not experience everything the vocation promises them.

Duty is only such a shackling term to those who have been indoctrinated with the atomistic individualism of the present day; England expects that every man will do his duty.

 

[clem456]

Duty is only such a shackling term to those who have been indoctrinated with the atomistic individualism of the present day; England expects that every man will do his duty.

Fair enough.
But marriage is a vocation, and that word expresses the fullness of what it is. Duty expresses a part of what a vocation entails.

 

[k5rakitan]

I’ve heard of friends getting married in order to get tax benefits from the government who never consummated their marriage. Getting married by the government isn’t the same thing as getting married in the eyes of the church. Gay marriage will never be real in the eyes of the church.

 

[livingwordunity]

Getting married by the government isn’t the same thing as getting married in the eyes of the church.

That depends. The Church doesn’t consider it to be a valid marriage if a Catholic gets married outside of the Church without a dispensation from the bishop. But if a non-Catholic man and woman to marry each other outside of the Church then the Church will presume the marriage to be valid and natural but not sacramental. Of course, the Church won’t consider it a valid marriage in any case of divorce where either the husband or wife has been validly married to someone else even if neither is a Catholic.

Gay marriage will never be real in the eyes of the church.

I agree. It’s another example of what the Church would call invalid. It’s so opposite of marriage that I’m thinking that an annulment would not be required.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

• the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
• posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **