Catholic Leader: Marriage Is ‘Not About Love’ Or ‘Making People Happy’

[Synthaholic]

I doubt that many of you actually watched the video at the link, but Fugelsang makes him and his arguments look foolish.

He had no intelligent answer when Fugelsang brought up the issue of sterile people getting married, for one.

 

[Katzndogz]

He's right. The purpose of a marriage is to establish and protect children. At one time marriage was about establishing and protecting wealth and children for orderly succession. People who do not intend to have children, or cannot have children gain very little benefit from marriage. Older people are more likely to live together for companionship and mutual financial benefit but have no real need of marriage.

The whole concept of marriage "to show the world how much we love one another" is fairly recent.

And there's always the ulterior motive of legal attachment . People who are legally married are much more prone to feel protected and secure even if it's only an illusion.

We know that at least presently, that's not true. Plenty of people make lifelong attachments and never get married. Some people get married with wide open marriages and an attachment to nothing. A piece of paper cannot make an attachment. Lack of that paper cannot destroy an attachment.

 

[dilloduck]

He's right. The purpose of a marriage is to establish and protect children. At one time marriage was about establishing and protecting wealth and children for orderly succession. People who do not intend to have children, or cannot have children gain very little benefit from marriage. Older people are more likely to live together for companionship and mutual financial benefit but have no real need of marriage.

The whole concept of marriage "to show the world how much we love one another" is fairly recent.

And there's always the ulterior motive of legal attachment . People who are legally married are much more prone to feel protected and secure even if it's only an illusion.

We know that at least presently, that's not true. Plenty of people make lifelong attachments and never get married. Some people get married with wide open marriages and an attachment to nothing. A piece of paper cannot make an attachment. Lack of that paper cannot destroy an attachment.

Of course it's true---people FEEL that because they are married that it is much harder for the relationship to end. They feel that the odds of their spouse having sex with someone else is reduced. And they are right to a certain extent. Family and friend are now invested and when children come along the bonds get even tighter.

 

[midcan5]

Mom's idea was marriage was for all of the above and especially included propagation of the faith, something you don't hear today. And boy did she propagate, you have to give the Catholic Church one thing, when they oppose abortion they mean all preventative measures. When others oppose abortion they usually mean telling another how to live. If children are the reason for marriage, the good sir missed the time in history when that was at least partially true. How many married folk today let no opportunity pass?

 

[rdean]

It's only fun when it's P's and B's.

 

[hjmick]

I have been married, divorced, lived with a gal, and married again. Three different women.

Mistakenly interpreted lust for love, got married, had a kid, woke up and got divorced. I didn't make that mistake the second time, I knew what that was, had a kid anyway, no regrets when it ended and we both moved on. Got married again sixteen years ago. Not to procreate, not to have a family, but because we are in love.

Neither of us have ever been happier in a relationship, neither of us have ever been more in love. We have gone through hell and high water together, things that would have crushed the first two relationships. We got through them together because we are in love and committed to each other, not because we wanted to procreate.

You want to look at the high divorce rate? Fine, but don't blame it on people marrying for love, look to those of us who have mistaken lust for love. Those who marry too young, when they are too immature.

 

[The Rabbi]

I believe that parts of the bible were written hundreds of years after other parts.

Not exactly accurate reporting.

I believe you're a poorly educated moron.
Actually that isn't subject to belief. That's reality,friend.

More than 40 authors in three languages during a period of 1,500 years contributed to the books and letters which make up the biblical canon of Scripture.


Dumbass.

Confirmation-bias moron.

 

[Warrior102]

"God" as defined/personified in the bible was INVENTED by man--a man-made mythology like those that preceded it--our finite minds trying to explain and rationalize

Really now
What sort of proof do you have to support that statement?

 

[dilloduck]

The reasons for getting married are as varied as there are people who do it. Ask anyone " What is the purpose of marriage?" and you will find several people prepared to tell you that you are full of shit.

 

[Yurt]

Mr. Donohue is unequivocally wrong. Marriage is about the tax breaks...






Okay, seriously...

If marriage is not about love or making people happy, the practice should be abolished. I wouldn't consider spending the rest of my life with someone I didn't love, someone who didn't bring me happiness. It's doomed to fail otherwise. How do those Catholics feel about divorce and adultery again?

Criminy, statements like that make me happy I dumped the church decades ago...

Here's to being a Recovering Catholic...

amen

the guy is a nutter

 

[Yurt]

let's see...

rush has been married how many times?

britney spears was once married for how long?

women who can't have children should not marry?

homosexual marriage will "destroy" "traditional" marriage?

 

[The Rabbi]

let's see...

rush has been married how many times?

britney spears was once married for how long?

women who can't have children should not marry?

homosexual marriage will "destroy" "traditional" marriage?

1)Irrelevant
2) Irrelevant
3) They can always adopt children
Yes. When something can mean anything it quickly means nothing.

 

[Yurt]

let's see...

rush has been married how many times?

britney spears was once married for how long?

women who can't have children should not marry?

homosexual marriage will "destroy" "traditional" marriage?

1)Irrelevant
2) Irrelevant
3) They can always adopt children
Yes. When something can mean anything it quickly means nothing.

completely relevant as you guys claim gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage, that which rush and britney were married under.

gays can adopt as well. you lose that argument before you even started it.

marriage is nothing more than a contract under the law. gay marriage would not change that definition.

care to try again?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“This idea of two men getting married is the most bizarre idea in human history,” Donohue told host John Fugelsang, adding that the purpose of marriage is a “duty” to procreate.

“The whole purpose of marriage is to have a family,” he said. “It’s not about making people happy. It’s not about love.”

Which is why we fortunately have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this type of ignorance and hate.

 

[bodecea]

“This idea of two men getting married is the most bizarre idea in human history,” Donohue told host John Fugelsang, adding that the purpose of marriage is a “duty” to procreate.

“The whole purpose of marriage is to have a family,” he said. “It’s not about making people happy. It’s not about love.”

Which is why we fortunately have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this type of ignorance and hate.

Make no mistake...if we didn't have the protections of the Constitution, we'd very likely be in a theocracy...or very near like it....in some states at least.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You think that's Odd, people like you think marriage is all about two guys sticking it into each other's mouth and ass. Odd, huh?

It is odd for someone to define marriage for other people.
It is also odd to be a hateful bigot prick.
But what can you do.

Marriage is/was defined by God, numbnuts.
Not by man.
Do what you can with that.

Marriage is contract law written by the states, administered by state courts. Same-sex couples have the right to access marriage law as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Catholics are at liberty to deny religious marriage to same-sex couples as guaranteed by the First Amendment; they may not, however, seek to codify subjective religious dogma into secular law.

 

[Yurt]

“This idea of two men getting married is the most bizarre idea in human history,” Donohue told host John Fugelsang, adding that the purpose of marriage is a “duty” to procreate.

“The whole purpose of marriage is to have a family,” he said. “It’s not about making people happy. It’s not about love.”

Which is why we fortunately have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this type of ignorance and hate.

Make no mistake...if we didn't have the protections of the Constitution, we'd very likely be in a theocracy...or very near like it....in some states at least.

might be, however, our founders created this great country because they fled a theocracy/monarchy in england. the founders wanted anything but a theocracy.

edit: not anything, but they didn't want a theocracy

 

[bodecea]

Which is why we fortunately have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this type of ignorance and hate.

Make no mistake...if we didn't have the protections of the Constitution, we'd very likely be in a theocracy...or very near like it....in some states at least.

might be, however, our founders created this great country because they fled a theocracy/monarchy in england. the founders wanted anything but a theocracy.

Say that about the Puritans.

 

[Yurt]

“This idea of two men getting married is the most bizarre idea in human history,” Donohue told host John Fugelsang, adding that the purpose of marriage is a “duty” to procreate.

“The whole purpose of marriage is to have a family,” he said. “It’s not about making people happy. It’s not about love.”

Which is why we fortunately have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this type of ignorance and hate.

you have a point, but what about states that have amended their constitutions? what if the US constitution was amended in the same way?

 

[Yurt]

Make no mistake...if we didn't have the protections of the Constitution, we'd very likely be in a theocracy...or very near like it....in some states at least.

might be, however, our founders created this great country because they fled a theocracy/monarchy in england. the founders wanted anything but a theocracy.

Say that about the Puritans.

they were not our founders...read history