Why do we pretend that marriage is sacred?

[Questioner]

From a pragmatic, legal perspective, marriage as an institution is not "sacred", and not about love - for the worst types of couples, who would probably be better off not marrying or reproducing to begin with, marriage, legally speaking is just a step above the "law of the jungle" and expediting legal arrangements such as divorce proceedings, as opposed to whatever potentially bloody feuds might have otherwise resulted from the lack of a legal system.

This is not to say there are not happy marriages, where couples are in love, but in many cases, they simply aren't, and many individuals spend or waste their entire lives on miserable or less-than-satisfactory unions.

Only in the context of a church, is a marriage "sacred", not in context of the Law. (Even theologically speaking, and in the context of whatever vows a couple makes, putting love in marriage on par with other concepts, such as "love of God" would be erroneous to many theologians, such as CS Lewis, with many of the contemporary theories on marital and couples love being more in the vein of Rousseau and "pop romanticism" than anything historical or theological.)

(Some for example think that Romeo and Juliet is "ideal love", even though it was considered more akin to a "teen romance", like Twilight, than more mature notions of love).

Regardless, as an institution marriage and monogamy are still hallmarks of civilization and first world countries.

 

[Norman]

Shitlib posting shit on the wrong forum, that's why.

 

[Questioner]

Shitlib posting shit on the wrong forum, that's why.

Nothing "liberal", just the facts.

Marriage as a legal institution isn't sacred, it's pragmatic - marriage is sacred in the context of churches and families.

The state doesn't care if people are happily married or miserably married, so long as they don't run afoul of the law. Much as it doesn't care if people are "bad" or "immoral" on a personal level, so long as they stay within the realm of the law and the rules.

 

[Norman]

Shitlib posting shit on the wrong forum, that's why.

Nothing "liberal", just the facts.

Marriage as a legal institution isn't sacred, it's pragmatic - marriage is sacred in the context of churches and families.

The state doesn't care if people are happily married or miserably married, so long as they don't run afoul of the law. Much as it doesn't care if people are "bad" or "immoral" on a personal level, so long as they stay within the realm of the law and the rules.

It's a fact that people should not hold a perfectly valid opinion?

Ok, boomer. I advise people do the perfect opposite what is suggested. Have children and view marriage as sacred keeping the family strong. This guy is envious for not having a father... a perfect example for the reason why.

 

[danielpalos]

From a pragmatic, legal perspective, marriage as an institution is not "sacred", and not about love - for the worst types of couples, who would probably be better off not marrying or reproducing to begin with, marriage, legally speaking is just a step above the "law of the jungle" and expediting legal arrangements such as divorce proceedings, as opposed to whatever potentially bloody feuds might have otherwise resulted from the lack of a legal system.

This is not to say there are not happy marriages, where couples are in love, but in many cases, they simply aren't, and many individuals spend or waste their entire lives on miserable or less-than-satisfactory unions.

Only in the context of a church, is a marriage "sacred", not in context of the Law. (Even theologically speaking, and in the context of whatever vows a couple makes, putting love in marriage on par with other concepts, such as "love of God" would be erroneous to many theologians, such as CS Lewis, with many of the contemporary theories on marital and couples love being more in the vein of Rousseau and "pop romanticism" than anything historical or theological.)

(Some for example think that Romeo and Juliet is "ideal love", even though it was considered more akin to a "teen romance", like Twilight, than more mature notions of love).

Regardless, as an institution marriage and monogamy are still hallmarks of civilization and first world countries.

In my opinion, it is mostly about communication and negotiation.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

From a pragmatic, legal perspective, marriage as an institution is not "sacred", and not about love - for the worst types of couples, who would probably be better off not marrying or reproducing to begin with, marriage, legally speaking is just a step above the "law of the jungle" and expediting legal arrangements such as divorce proceedings, as opposed to whatever potentially bloody feuds might have otherwise resulted from the lack of a legal system.

This is not to say there are not happy marriages, where couples are in love, but in many cases, they simply aren't, and many individuals spend or waste their entire lives on miserable or less-than-satisfactory unions.

Only in the context of a church, is a marriage "sacred", not in context of the Law. (Even theologically speaking, and in the context of whatever vows a couple makes, putting love in marriage on par with other concepts, such as "love of God" would be erroneous to many theologians, such as CS Lewis, with many of the contemporary theories on marital and couples love being more in the vein of Rousseau and "pop romanticism" than anything historical or theological.)

(Some for example think that Romeo and Juliet is "ideal love", even though it was considered more akin to a "teen romance", like Twilight, than more mature notions of love).

Regardless, as an institution marriage and monogamy are still hallmarks of civilization and first world countries.

Why do we pretend that marriage is sacred? Because it is. You cant get God's gifts if you are fucking homosexuals....That is the real beef with the queers and lesbo's who just cant get passed their insane wishes to take the rights of normal people away who can have babies, normally.

 

[occupied]

Marriage is only as sacred as you make your own.

 

[initforme]

Marriage can be sacred. I also think alit less married couples having kids is a good thing.

 

[Norman]

Marriage can be sacred. I also think alit less married couples having kids is a good thing.

Yes it is, if the couples are leftists.

We already have enough leftists on the planet. Definitely, never have kids, take your own words.

 

[Correll]

From a pragmatic, legal perspective, marriage as an institution is not "sacred", and not about love - for the worst types of couples, who would probably be better off not marrying or reproducing to begin with, marriage, legally speaking is just a step above the "law of the jungle" and expediting legal arrangements such as divorce proceedings, as opposed to whatever potentially bloody feuds might have otherwise resulted from the lack of a legal system.

This is not to say there are not happy marriages, where couples are in love, but in many cases, they simply aren't, and many individuals spend or waste their entire lives on miserable or less-than-satisfactory unions.

Only in the context of a church, is a marriage "sacred", not in context of the Law. (Even theologically speaking, and in the context of whatever vows a couple makes, putting love in marriage on par with other concepts, such as "love of God" would be erroneous to many theologians, such as CS Lewis, with many of the contemporary theories on marital and couples love being more in the vein of Rousseau and "pop romanticism" than anything historical or theological.)

(Some for example think that Romeo and Juliet is "ideal love", even though it was considered more akin to a "teen romance", like Twilight, than more mature notions of love).

Regardless, as an institution marriage and monogamy are still hallmarks of civilization and first world countries.

Marriage is the basic building block of our society. As you say, it is the hallmark of our civilization and first world countries.


SOmething so important and beneficial on such a primal level to so many people,


it is beyond the word "sacred". It is all that you have said and more. ONe would be better advised to question, is the word "sacred" worthy to be used to define "marriage".

 

[initforme]

Sorry to tell you I have four of my own but I chose to have them and raise them. Whether the couple is left or right doesn't matter. If you g couples want to focus on their careers then we as a nation should support this courageous, brave, and well thought out decision.

 

[initforme]

It's not a duty to have kids for the good of the nation. That's the point.

 

[Norman]

It's not a duty to have kids for the good of the nation. That's the point.

It is duty for you to not have kids so that Darwin can work its way and we get rid of the self haters.

For regular Americans, yes it is a duty. It's what keeps the nation going.

 

[occupied]

ONe would be better advised to question, is the word "sacred" worthy to be used to define "marriage".

Marriage is what you make of it.

 

[Unkotare]

From a pragmatic, legal perspective, marriage as an institution is not "sacred", and not about love - for the worst types of couples, who would probably be better off not marrying or reproducing to begin with, marriage, legally speaking is just a step above the "law of the jungle" and expediting legal arrangements such as divorce proceedings, as opposed to whatever potentially bloody feuds might have otherwise resulted from the lack of a legal system.

This is not to say there are not happy marriages, where couples are in love, but in many cases, they simply aren't, and many individuals spend or waste their entire lives on miserable or less-than-satisfactory unions.

Only in the context of a church, is a marriage "sacred", not in context of the Law. (Even theologically speaking, and in the context of whatever vows a couple makes, putting love in marriage on par with other concepts, such as "love of God" would be erroneous to many theologians, such as CS Lewis, with many of the contemporary theories on marital and couples love being more in the vein of Rousseau and "pop romanticism" than anything historical or theological.)

(Some for example think that Romeo and Juliet is "ideal love", even though it was considered more akin to a "teen romance", like Twilight, than more mature notions of love).

Regardless, as an institution marriage and monogamy are still hallmarks of civilization and first world countries.

Getting a rash on your left hand?

 

[bodecea]

From a pragmatic, legal perspective, marriage as an institution is not "sacred", and not about love - for the worst types of couples, who would probably be better off not marrying or reproducing to begin with, marriage, legally speaking is just a step above the "law of the jungle" and expediting legal arrangements such as divorce proceedings, as opposed to whatever potentially bloody feuds might have otherwise resulted from the lack of a legal system.

This is not to say there are not happy marriages, where couples are in love, but in many cases, they simply aren't, and many individuals spend or waste their entire lives on miserable or less-than-satisfactory unions.

Only in the context of a church, is a marriage "sacred", not in context of the Law. (Even theologically speaking, and in the context of whatever vows a couple makes, putting love in marriage on par with other concepts, such as "love of God" would be erroneous to many theologians, such as CS Lewis, with many of the contemporary theories on marital and couples love being more in the vein of Rousseau and "pop romanticism" than anything historical or theological.)

(Some for example think that Romeo and Juliet is "ideal love", even though it was considered more akin to a "teen romance", like Twilight, than more mature notions of love).

Regardless, as an institution marriage and monogamy are still hallmarks of civilization and first world countries.

Why do we pretend that marriage is sacred? Because it is. You cant get God's gifts if you are fucking homosexuals....That is the real beef with the queers and lesbo's who just cant get passed their insane wishes to take the rights of normal people away who can have babies, normally.

Why is there civil marriage then?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

From a pragmatic, legal perspective, marriage as an institution is not "sacred", and not about love - for the worst types of couples, who would probably be better off not marrying or reproducing to begin with, marriage, legally speaking is just a step above the "law of the jungle" and expediting legal arrangements such as divorce proceedings, as opposed to whatever potentially bloody feuds might have otherwise resulted from the lack of a legal system.

This is not to say there are not happy marriages, where couples are in love, but in many cases, they simply aren't, and many individuals spend or waste their entire lives on miserable or less-than-satisfactory unions.

Only in the context of a church, is a marriage "sacred", not in context of the Law. (Even theologically speaking, and in the context of whatever vows a couple makes, putting love in marriage on par with other concepts, such as "love of God" would be erroneous to many theologians, such as CS Lewis, with many of the contemporary theories on marital and couples love being more in the vein of Rousseau and "pop romanticism" than anything historical or theological.)

(Some for example think that Romeo and Juliet is "ideal love", even though it was considered more akin to a "teen romance", like Twilight, than more mature notions of love).

Regardless, as an institution marriage and monogamy are still hallmarks of civilization and first world countries.

Why do we pretend that marriage is sacred? Because it is. You cant get God's gifts if you are fucking homosexuals....That is the real beef with the queers and lesbo's who just cant get passed their insane wishes to take the rights of normal people away who can have babies, normally.

Why is there civil marriage then?

The government can get involved like it always gets involved with everything else, but the sanctity of marriage can only be complete between a man and a woman. If you cant understand this, they you have been brainwashed by said government.

 

[gtopa1]

Shitlib posting shit on the wrong forum, that's why.

Nothing "liberal", just the facts.

Marriage as a legal institution isn't sacred, it's pragmatic - marriage is sacred in the context of churches and families.

The state doesn't care if people are happily married or miserably married, so long as they don't run afoul of the law. Much as it doesn't care if people are "bad" or "immoral" on a personal level, so long as they stay within the realm of the law and the rules.

marriage is sacred in the context of churches and families.

Yes.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

From a pragmatic, legal perspective, marriage as an institution is not "sacred", and not about love - for the worst types of couples, who would probably be better off not marrying or reproducing to begin with, marriage, legally speaking is just a step above the "law of the jungle" and expediting legal arrangements such as divorce proceedings, as opposed to whatever potentially bloody feuds might have otherwise resulted from the lack of a legal system.

This is not to say there are not happy marriages, where couples are in love, but in many cases, they simply aren't, and many individuals spend or waste their entire lives on miserable or less-than-satisfactory unions.

Only in the context of a church, is a marriage "sacred", not in context of the Law. (Even theologically speaking, and in the context of whatever vows a couple makes, putting love in marriage on par with other concepts, such as "love of God" would be erroneous to many theologians, such as CS Lewis, with many of the contemporary theories on marital and couples love being more in the vein of Rousseau and "pop romanticism" than anything historical or theological.)

(Some for example think that Romeo and Juliet is "ideal love", even though it was considered more akin to a "teen romance", like Twilight, than more mature notions of love).

Regardless, as an institution marriage and monogamy are still hallmarks of civilization and first world countries.

Why do we pretend that marriage is sacred? Because it is. You cant get God's gifts if you are fucking homosexuals....That is the real beef with the queers and lesbo's who just cant get passed their insane wishes to take the rights of normal people away who can have babies, normally.

Why is there civil marriage then?

The Government decided to involve itself. meh: can be good/can be bad. But you are right in one sense; Governments are only there to oversee that Citizens obey the Law.

Greg

 

[Meriweather]

From a pragmatic, legal perspective, marriage as an institution is not "sacred", and not about love - for the worst types of couples, who would probably be better off not marrying or reproducing to begin with, marriage, legally speaking is just a step above the "law of the jungle" and expediting legal arrangements such as divorce proceedings, as opposed to whatever potentially bloody feuds might have otherwise resulted from the lack of a legal system.

Let's go back to the original meaning of 'sacred'. It comes from the word 'consecrated'. 'Holy' carried the connotations of wholeness and healing, which are attributes of God. From here we can look to what today's couples are consecrating their marriages. Is it to their own happiness? To their own sexual desires? To their own security? With each of these consecrations when happiness, sexual desire, and security fail--or are no longer needed from the marriage venue--the marriage fails. The more marriage fails, the more people dismiss it and engage in relationships outside the to avoid the legal entanglements in which the government has ensnared the institution.