Hi there.
I am working on a paper and would like to get some input from a Christian perspective.

Marriage has changed over time from an institution which existed for the purposes of property transfer, establishing political ties, inheriting wealth, continuing bloodlines, etc. to what it is today. However, what it is today in Western culture is largely unclear to me.

I was raised Catholic. Not a go-to-church-on-easter-and-christmas Catholic, but very involved in my church. The emphasis, for me, was always on love. And I'm wondering if that was an accurate understanding.

Marry for love, not for money. Marry for love, not for power. Marry for love, not to please other people. And "love" was not simply an emotional thing- it had to do with emotions, of course, but it was also a matter of companionship and committment- that even when things were not easy or ideal, you worked together to make things work. Emotions may fluctuate over time, but you have made a promise to this one person for life. But the basis is on compassion and care for another, romantic love that manifests itself in a lifetime of self-giving and support for another person who you promise to remain faithful to.

Is this an accurate portrayal of what marriage is at it's core in accordance with Christian and Catholic beliefs? Love? Commitment? Respect?

How essential to marriage do Catholics and Christians consider procreation? Morally speaking (not legally), is divorce due to an inability to have children permissible? Or are couples encouraged (or even required?) to seek out alternatives (adoption, artificial insemination, etc.)?

It seems that procreation is often cited as an essential element of marriage (i.e. a large factor in the argument against same sex marriages). But if in a heterosexual marriage where having children is not possible, is it then permissible to dissolve that union?

Please be as detailed in your reasoning as possible. I am trying to understand what the current perspective on this is so I can reference it in my paper. I appreciate any feedback on this you can offer.

Your trying to address a lot in a short spanse here.

As far as the christian perspective goes in my opinion it is about the commitment of marriage and procreation. There are no guarantees in life so the absolute of having children isn't the dominant factor to holding a marriage together. After all if we are talking about the cycle of life in a marriage and till death do us part. Most couples surviving the years make it to a point where having children is no longer an option. Does that mean the marriage should be dissolved at that point? No it does not. The biggest changes effecting marriage at this time in many christian churches is what to do with those procreating outside of marriage. Many moons ago an unmarried woman was shunned for having a baby outside of marriage. In today's time and even in churches it is celebrated. To me that celebration (my opinion) is a stamp of approval and it has led us down the path to a higher divorce rate. Far too many expect perfection in a marriage as it matures. There is no honeymoon forever. There will always be highs and lows and it's the commitment that carries you through the rough seas of life. The marriage is and should be the lifeboat for lifes changing tides.

So to clarify, the emphasis is upon the commitment between the two people, not their ability to procreate? Is it ever morally permissible to leave someone because they are sterile/infertile?

To me (my opinion) the answer is no. Otherwise you could include menopause as a justifiable way of seeking divorce. If it were just based on the ability to have children. Reality of life is that its not just the genes that make a parent it's the love given and the commitment.

The presumption is that when getting married children will follow in that relationship but reality tells us a different story.

Btw, Catholics ARE Christians. The big division is Catholic and Protestant. Both groups are Christian.

Might your topic be too broad? Christianity includes not just the Roman Catholic Church but all the Protestant churches, and even the Catholic priests don't agree necessarily with the Pope.

I can't imagine any church finding it morally permissible to divorce someone who can't have children. Look at all the Churh run orphanages eager to find Christian homes for their children.

Sorry if I offended anyone by segregating Catholics from Christians- my intent was to separate Catholic Christians from other Protestant denominations. Not to imply that any group was less "Christian" than another.

I also have a hard time imagining a church giving the okay on a divorce based on inability to have children. Which, to me, seems to imply that the essential element to a marriage is the RELATIONSHIP between spouses, not their ability or inability to have children, correct?

And, if this is correct, why the opposition on behalf of many sects of Christianity to same sex marriage? Doesn't this seem to put forth a double standard? (If two people of the opposite sex fall in love, and can't have children, it is okay for them to marry, so long as the essential elements of love and commitment are present. If two people of the same sex fall in love, and can't have children, they cannot marry because the ability to procreate is an essential characteristic to marriage, regardless of the extent of their love and commitment to one another.)

Can someone explain? Am I missing something?

No it is not proper to divorce for any of the reasons you listed, In the bible, they only gave the reason of adultry and that was not even God will but an allowance that was made.

For a Catholic specific there is not really a good and acceptable reason for divorce, That does not mean a couple may not separate, get counseling or more

As far as my topic, I am writing a philosophy thesis on the interaction of morality and law, focusing in particular upon the issue of same sex marriage.

I am looking at the way in which the moral principles of fairness and equality inform our discussion and influence legal decisions regarding marriage- and, I feel that before I can approach that question, I need to understand what is ESSENTIAL to marriage and what is ACCIDENTAL. So far, it seems that the consensus is that love and commitment are essential characteristics, whereas the ability to procreate is an accidental characteritic (can apply but is not necessary).

The purpose of marriage is not procreation. It's unity; the two becoming one. That's how it is instituted in Genesis 3, and both Jesus and Paul repeated it. Procreation is, pardon me, a side-effect. The basic principle is, what God has joined together, don't tear apart.

It doesn't always work that way; it recently happened to me after 30 years of marriage, and I didn't have a whole heck of a lot to say about it. But that's the ideal in the Bible.

I was born to a Missouri-Synod Lutheran (conservative church body) minister and his wife. That church body to this day does not accept and sanctify a same-sex union simply because God created male and female and then blessed their union. He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, to be as one.

That seems to be the main argument by mainstream Christianity against allowing Christian marriage between same-sex couples.

What your missing is that same sex coupling is according to the bible is a sin. That runs counter to the church's goal. They don't endorse sin. The only thing they endorse is the sinner in so far as you are suppose to love one another and forgive but that has limitations too. You can't forgive unless the person repents the sin. If you continue the sin your not repenting your procreating the sin. That is not a christian value.

There is a simaler thread being posted in another forum going on very near this subject. Here is a link to it.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...an-590180.html

Love was not really the main issue, if you are looking at bibical times, arranged marriages were common, if luckly people may have learned to love each other, but commitment was what was done.

Also there was not a marriage by the state, as in the US, so the marriage was controlled by the church , not the state.

And there was no fairness or equal, women had no real status, often treated more like properly at times. During marriage in bible days, often marriages were arranged when children were very young.

Legal as for as the government is merely a form of control and has no bearing on religious means of weddings.
In the US, each state keeps control of marriage under the rules of that state. ( as the states were to keep control of most things, many which are lost)

The Catholic Church has over time allowed annulements ( they don't give divorce) for some reasons, this is not accepting those things. These allow members who are divorced due normally to no fault of their own to still partake of the sacraments.

Same sex marriage can easily become legal, according to the bible it can never be moral, But society has different levels of moral values, it is often that value accepted by soceity in general. But at the Church, moral is a strict line, not subject to variations

So what is the argument against same sex marriage, then, from the religious perspective?

That the Bible says it is a sin? That it is against God's intentions for humanity, as drawn from the creation story?

And, if it is indeed that specific to religious doctrine, rather than some practical purpose (like procreation) why do so many Christians argue against same sex secular marriages? If it is not religious marriage, but civil marriage, that individuals are seeking, on what grounds can Christians argue against them? It seems that arguing against civil marriage on religious grounds would be like arguing that the state ought to mandate attendance at church on Sundays?

Both of those.
Christians object to the use of the word "marriage," believing that word is unique to the religious ceremony. On the other hand, the term "civil union" is a ceremony sanctioned by the government.

Not trying to be argumentative- just probing for more info from people--

But it seems that, in a secular setting, and in particular a diverse society like that which exists in the US, specific religious prohibitions should not impact the development of laws which impact the general population. If your religious beliefs are not mine, then why should my life be limited by them?

If there is no relevant difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple, which it seems we've established that there is not, then what makes it permissible for the government to provide the benefits of marriage to one couple but not the other?

If there are relevant differences, please explain. It just seems that, from our conversation thus far, we've come to a sort of consensus that the essential characteristic of marriage is a loving, committed relationship. If couples, both gay and straight, can have that, on what grounds is it argued that both cannot marry in a civil ceremony which grants them the same benefits from the state and federal government?

Why, then, aren't religious folks opposed to heterosexual atheists who say that they are "married", esp. if the ceremony is performed by, say, a judge?

Or are they? Maybe I'm not aware...

Please understand it is far more than marriage, From the denomination view of my and many ( if not most) christian faiths, it is not just marriage, it is the entire homosexual relationship that is wrong.

They have just accepted defeat that in American and many countries, it has been accepted by either court action or moral degrade. Most would prefer to do away with public homosexual if not all homosexual relationship. We see it as a immoral issue.

Marriage is just the next battle line that has been drawn since currently making the relationship itself illegal is not possible.

Civil union is merely a compromise that some have accepted when it appears they may lose or they get tired of being called names.

To most Christians marriage is a union done before God, that the state has taken control of for its own control.
Example to me a couple married without a license by a pastor is just as married, they just don't have legal rights as a couple.

So when given a "civil union" that gives them the same legal rights, it is not enough for many of the gay groups, who wish to push the issue.

For me, the issue is really a mute issue, since for me, it is the homosexual issue itself, one that is to my faith, against Gods will. So if it is allowed, I would wish on them all the same obligations that others have to worry about,
Divorce agreements, having to pay alimony, chlid support when they are allowed to adopt and more.
In fact, since they don't have that "legal" right but get to live in their relationship anyway. In fact I would wish on them and the hetro couples who live together, either common law marriage, or a common law civil union. Since I don't think that any of them should have a free ride without having to pay for their life choices.

So I think to many they have lost sight of the real fight, since it was lost by today's society,

Many Christians argue that God's intention is to join only a man and a woman in marriage. Same-sex couples need not apply for that privilege and right. As Chuck said, there is grudging acceptance by liberal Christians of a civil union for same-sex couples, but that union does not usually confer the same rights as does a marriage.