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

[ScienceRocks]

Ideally the states should obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

There’s no reason to get the courts involved.

Unfortunately social conservatives and the partisan right see the issue as a political weapon, a means by which to energize the partisan base; what better way to accomplish this than a protracted court battle, allowing republican politicians to demonize the courts while on the stump.

so if utah allowed polygamy, then all other states should follow....

you don't understand the law well at all

No, if Utah allowed polygamy, it would be overturned by Federal courts.

Is there any real reason to ban polygramy? Isn't these consenting adults?

 

[Synthaholic]

so if utah allowed polygamy, then all other states should follow....

you don't understand the law well at all

No, if Utah allowed polygamy, it would be overturned by Federal courts.

so could gay marriage

please try to be smarter synth...thanks

Did I claim they couldn't?

Apparently, I am smart enough.

(to go head-to-head with you, anyway... )

 

[Synthaholic]

Come on lefties. Enough of the spin already. Radical Islam wants to kill us and you nit-pick statements by Catholic priests about marriage. Typical.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Come on lefties. Enough of the spin already. Radical Islam wants to kill us and you nit-pick statements by Catholic priests about marriage. Typical.

Radical islam = Taliban and al queada. Yes they do want to kill Americans.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Your first statement is incomprehensible. You can always find bad examples of anything. Most marriages are not like Brittany Spears'. In fact very few are. They are thus irrelevant to the subject.
Gays can adopt. So what? We are discussing marriage, not whether fags can adopt.
Marriage is more than a contract under law. If it weren't then gays would be fine with domestic partnerships. Ask them if they would be OK with a new category of relationship called "domestic partnership" that created the same rights and benefits as marriage.

50% of marriage result in divorce. thus, completely relevant no matter how much you want to bury your head in the sand. FACT: there no longer exist "traditional" marriage. deal with it.

you said women who can marry and can't have children can adopt...so can gays. thus, marriage is NOT about having children, under the law.

marriage is in fact nothing but a contract. go to any divorce attorney and ask him or her. ask women who can't have children if they would like their marriage to be called "nonproducing marriage".....get the point.

And 50% don't. So what? Even the 50% figure is wrong. that is the number of divorces divided by the number of marriages. But of course people ahve been getting married for a long time. Plus more people are staying together.
Of course traditional marriage exists. People practice it every day.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

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...

The guy is out of line. Of course, marriage in the Catholic Church is about love. Here are a couple of phrases from the marriage vows:

I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.

take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

This Catholic League is not an official part of the Catholic Church. They even admit that.

However, the Catholic League stresses that "it does not speak authoritatively for the Church as a whole."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_League_(U.S.)

The League was formed to fight back against defamation of Catholics. But they are not the Church and I would take anything this guy says with a grain of salt.

I'm just speaking up about the "love" part. Of course Catholic marriage involves love. Just not gay love. Love between a man and a woman.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

It really looks like people mistake love for commitment. Your story sort of proves it.

I once had a conversation with a middle eastern woman in an arranged marriage. Divorce is not possible. The commitment both of them made is iron clad. They were madly in love with one another. As in love as if it was love's first blush. I asked her if she was happy and really in love with her husband. She said "of course, I had no choice. I adore him and he adores me. That's our commitment. Now I would take no other man but my husband." Love follows commitment. Where there is a true commitment on both sides, love is free to grow.

 

[BlueGin]

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

care to try again?

Marriage is what the participants choose to make it, nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly.

 

[wavingrl]

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.

It really looks like people mistake love for commitment. Your story sort of proves it.

I once had a conversation with a middle eastern woman in an arranged marriage. Divorce is not possible. The commitment both of them made is iron clad. They were madly in love with one another. As in love as if it was love's first blush. I asked her if she was happy and really in love with her husband. She said "of course, I had no choice. I adore him and he adores me. That's our commitment. Now I would take no other man but my husband." Love follows commitment. Where there is a true commitment on both sides, love is free to grow.

There may be others--but these two posts make more sense to me than others.

I can't even try to get into this. Yes, it is 'true' that the Bible says 'be fruitful and multiply', etc--not enough of a biblical scholar to address everything the Bible says. From my limited research--'being happy' is something that requires intense work--high levels of spiritual growth.

not entirely certain that I agree, fwiw. $.02

Having tried to determine 'what I really think' I have given up. 'To love one another'--that is usually the response to my queries. The last time I considered this issue --same sex marriage--the Episcopal church seemed to be interpreting the Bible somewhat differently. I know that it is not my responsibility to determine the choices of others.

~~~~~
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/gay-marriage-church-religion-prop-8-doma_n_3469191.html

so, if one person expresses an opinion--clearly there are other opinions.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Marriage is much more than a "contract under the law." That's why my husband and I got married twice. The first marriage was the "legal" one. We did it quickly, we had lived together for eight years so there was no reason to wait. Then, several months later we got married in the Catholic Church. And that is our real marriage. We were already legally married when we took each other's hand and walked down the aisle of the Catholic Church. So it wasn't about legal contracts. It was much more than that. And a great, great part of it was commitment. There is no divorce in the Catholic Church. So our sacrament of marriage in the Church symbolized a lifelong commitment. If there are problems, we have to work them out. There is no other choice. And that's what we wanted.

 

[Yurt]

Your first statement is incomprehensible. You can always find bad examples of anything. Most marriages are not like Brittany Spears'. In fact very few are. They are thus irrelevant to the subject.
Gays can adopt. So what? We are discussing marriage, not whether fags can adopt.
Marriage is more than a contract under law. If it weren't then gays would be fine with domestic partnerships. Ask them if they would be OK with a new category of relationship called "domestic partnership" that created the same rights and benefits as marriage.

50% of marriage result in divorce. thus, completely relevant no matter how much you want to bury your head in the sand. FACT: there no longer exist "traditional" marriage. deal with it.

you said women who can marry and can't have children can adopt...so can gays. thus, marriage is NOT about having children, under the law.

marriage is in fact nothing but a contract. go to any divorce attorney and ask him or her. ask women who can't have children if they would like their marriage to be called "nonproducing marriage".....get the point.

And 50% don't. So what? Even the 50% figure is wrong. that is the number of divorces divided by the number of marriages. But of course people ahve been getting married for a long time. Plus more people are staying together.
Of course traditional marriage exists. People practice it every day.

great, then get the government out of marriage and keep it traditional.

fair enough?

 

[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.

It really looks like people mistake love for commitment. Your story sort of proves it.

I once had a conversation with a middle eastern woman in an arranged marriage. Divorce is not possible. The commitment both of them made is iron clad. They were madly in love with one another. As in love as if it was love's first blush. I asked her if she was happy and really in love with her husband. She said "of course, I had no choice. I adore him and he adores me. That's our commitment. Now I would take no other man but my husband." Love follows commitment. Where there is a true commitment on both sides, love is free to grow.

I believe your story speaks to cultural differences. I don't imagine that anyone on this board, anyone raised in a culture without arranged marriage, could fathom tolerating such. I suspect that your middle eastern acquaintance may be an exception? But then again, maybe not... If this is what you are raised with, if you accept that this is what is expected of you, it probably works to a degree.

I know that divorce in many middle eastern cultures is unacceptable, so statistics are probably unavailable, I would be curious to see what the rate of adultery is among those in arranged marriages.

 

[wavingrl]

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.

It really looks like people mistake love for commitment. Your story sort of proves it.

I once had a conversation with a middle eastern woman in an arranged marriage. Divorce is not possible. The commitment both of them made is iron clad. They were madly in love with one another. As in love as if it was love's first blush. I asked her if she was happy and really in love with her husband. She said "of course, I had no choice. I adore him and he adores me. That's our commitment. Now I would take no other man but my husband." Love follows commitment. Where there is a true commitment on both sides, love is free to grow.

I believe your story speaks to cultural differences. I don't imagine that anyone on this board, anyone raised in a culture without arranged marriage, could fathom tolerating such. I suspect that your middle eastern acquaintance may be an exception? But then again, maybe not... If this is what you are raised with, if you accept that this is what is expected of you, it probably works to a degree.

I know that divorce in many middle eastern cultures is unacceptable, so statistics are probably unavailable, I would be curious to see what the rate of adultery is among those in arranged marriages.

??
If the culture is Islam--isn't the penalty for adultery 'being stoned to death'--maybe that applies to women only.

 

[hjmick]

??
If the culture is Islam--isn't the penalty for adultery 'being stoned to death'--maybe that applies to women only.

It seems like we only ever hear of women paying the penalty for such actions, that's for sure...

We could broaden the question to include the broader Asian continent and some of its cultures that practice arranged marriages.

 

[wavingrl]

??
If the culture is Islam--isn't the penalty for adultery 'being stoned to death'--maybe that applies to women only.

It seems like we only ever hear of women paying the penalty for such actions, that's for sure...

We could broaden the question to include the Asian continent and some of its cultures that practice arranged marriages.

That's true.

India--I think, also.

At this point--I cheer when I hear of anyone who is successful in this area.

 

[JoeB131]

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

What if there is no God?

I've also noticed here that like a lot of homophobes, Warrior spends a lot of time thinking about gay sex, the mechanics of it and describing it in the most graphic ways.

It's kind of like if you met a vegetarian who just couldn't stop talking about steak, describing steak in the most lurid ways and talking about juices flowing out of it smothered in mushrooms and onions.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

The concept that people should vote for their leaders is fairly recent. (At least all the people and not just a privilaged few).

The concept that one human being should not be allowed to won another is fairly recent.

Neither is supported by the Bible.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Your first statement is incomprehensible. You can always find bad examples of anything. Most marriages are not like Brittany Spears'. In fact very few are. They are thus irrelevant to the subject.
Gays can adopt. So what? We are discussing marriage, not whether fags can adopt.
Marriage is more than a contract under law. If it weren't then gays would be fine with domestic partnerships. Ask them if they would be OK with a new category of relationship called "domestic partnership" that created the same rights and benefits as marriage.

Again, the problem with "Domestic Partnerships" is the problem with a "colored Water Fountain". It's defacto segregation.

The colored water fountain still dispensed H20, but it didnt' look as nice and it was set off to the side to be something less.

Which is what makes it unacceptable.

 

[bodecea]

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.

What if there is no God?

I've also noticed here that like a lot of homophobes, Warrior spends a lot of time thinking about gay sex, the mechanics of it and describing it in the most graphic ways.

It's kind of like if you met a vegetarian who just couldn't stop talking about steak, describing steak in the most lurid ways and talking about juices flowing out of it smothered in mushrooms and onions.

An excellent analogy.

 

[bodecea]

50% of marriage result in divorce. thus, completely relevant no matter how much you want to bury your head in the sand. FACT: there no longer exist "traditional" marriage. deal with it.

you said women who can marry and can't have children can adopt...so can gays. thus, marriage is NOT about having children, under the law.

marriage is in fact nothing but a contract. go to any divorce attorney and ask him or her. ask women who can't have children if they would like their marriage to be called "nonproducing marriage".....get the point.

And 50% don't. So what? Even the 50% figure is wrong. that is the number of divorces divided by the number of marriages. But of course people ahve been getting married for a long time. Plus more people are staying together.
Of course traditional marriage exists. People practice it every day.

great, then get the government out of marriage and keep it traditional.

fair enough?

What have you actively done to make that happen? Any particular politicians pushing for that?