Marriage

[Edgarcito]

Is the institution of marriage valid?  Yes, no, thoughts please?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Well well Edgarcito back for more How'd you like Ole @SemmelweisReflex? He was a character huh? Almost as entertaining as pittsburghjoe. 

 

Well I guess its according to personal preference. In our society there are great benefits for being married. Tax benefits, car insurance discount, some people are less likely to try to fuck your spouse, (SOME PEOPLE STILL DONT CARE THO) For me it's a commitment to that one person for the rest of your life. Do I think GOD instituted marriage. THATS A BIG FAT NO. Every religion has there form of marriage. So if God instituted it then I guess all God's are the true God. I know I dont plan on doing it again. I dont feel like risking half of my belongings again in this life time. I wouldn't mind having a live in girlfriend tho. We could play the part if she wanted to. But legally getting married. Eh I don't think so. It'd take someone very special for me to take that leap again. 

 

It's not a sin to be with someone without being married. If that's what you thinking. Is it romantic? Yes I suppose so. Is it necessary? No. Thats for the couple to decide. Whatever floats her boat and sinks his pickle  

[midniterider]

21 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Is the institution of marriage valid?  Yes, no, thoughts please?

 

First marriage bad. 

Second marriage good!

 

It does not curb one's natural desire to fuck other people though. So that is a downside. But I think the institution is mostly designed to 'try' to keep people together while they raise kids. It's only partially successful. It's hilarious when some wildlife show on tv says something like, "the orangutan, like humans, mate for life." While it might be fun to consider a new paradigm where all marriages are open and nobody gets jealous, it probably doesnt work as good the flawed system we have now. 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

That's an odd question.  I mean, it's no less valid than the drinking age, driving age, or Social Security.  For the religious it's whatever beliefs in which they hold fast.

 

Are you asking about a specific type of marriage?  Some countries (such as Nigeria) have multiple types of marriage, each with their own requirements (one wife, two wives, or 2+ wives)

 

Or how amount the Musuo who don't usually get married in any sense we're familiar with - but the eldest female runs the household and males live with their mothers/aunts and act as fathers for the children the women produce?

[alreadyGone]

48 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Is the institution of marriage valid?  Yes, no, thoughts please?

 

I'm curious what you may mean by "valid".

 

[TABA]

42 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Is the institution of marriage valid?  Yes, no, thoughts please?

Not sure exactly what you mean by “valid”.   Is it a union blessed by God?  No.  Does it have value?  For some people and at certain stages in life.  Most of us want a long-term relationship at some point in life.  But sometimes cohabitation without marriage is better.  Most people shouldn’t get married until they’re in their 30s:  it pains me to see these young Christians get married right out of school or college, just to make sex ‘legal’.  Ten years later, they’re often different people.  And the Christian concept of one mate for life is not realistic or even desirable for most people. 
 

I’ve been happily married for 22 years so I’m not knocking it.  I think it does serve the needs of women more than men though.  

[Edgarcito]

Just now, alreadyGone said:

 

I'm curious what you may mean by "valid".

 

Just visiting with a young lady the other day.....she was adamant that people growing apart/difficulty was a valid reason for divorce.....that vows/trust didn't supersede the growing apart.  I guess my question was why get married.  Thought I'd poll the non-believers here and see if marriage meant anything to them....if life is just something that happens, then marriage really shouldn't mean much. 

[Edgarcito]

51 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Well well Edgarcito back for more

No, when Florduh starts threads with questions he has discussed hundreds of times, then the real issue is they need a sacrificial stand-in Christian.  I saw him in need and here I is.  If we ever meet in person, he's buying.

 

This is an example of the mystic spiritual insight that Josh can only dream about....lol.

[alreadyGone]

What is your opinion Edgar?

 

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

What is your opinion Edgar?

 

I think the typical vows going in are pretty self explanatory.  We go in acknowledging that there will be difficult times....which would be the point, that we vow to another person that we will help them get from A to B, good and bad, in trust and faith.   

 

 

[alreadyGone]

That makes sense Edgar.

A vow of lifelong loyalty and fidelity should mean something.

Else what is the point or the meaning of the word "vow"?

 

Putting Christian beliefs  aside for the moment..

In the U.S. at least, marriage has many other implications and consequences, as you know.  Long before the first licenses for marriage were issued, people married anyway. And they do so today also.

 

In some states, in the absence of a marriage license, when a man and woman share a home and live together for greater than some period (it varies from state to state) then they are married in common law as decreed by the state, without regard to the wishes of the two people involved.

 

In some states, if a man and woman present themselves socially and publicly as "a married couple", the same applies: the state decrees them married.

 

So-called "common-law" marriage is every bit as "real" legally as a state-licensed marriage.

 

When a license for marriage is issued by the state, a three-way legal agreement is formed in which the state becomes (legally) part of the marriage. That's why you have to petition the state for divorce, and why divorce is adjudicated according to terms determined solely by the state.

 

When the state issues any license, for anything, the license grants a legal privilege. This means that the activity in question is legal to do only if you hold the license, and not legal to do if you do not hold a license.

 

(I specify "man and woman" in regard to the above because such laws regarding "common law marriage" pre-date same-sex marriage, and I do not know if the laws have been updated or amended since the advent of same-sex marriage. It presents an interesting question or two...)

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

54 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Just visiting with a young lady the other day.....she was adamant that people growing apart/difficulty was a valid reason for divorce.....that vows/trust didn't supersede the growing apart.  I guess my question was why get married.  Thought I'd poll the non-believers here and see if marriage meant anything to them....if life is just something that happens, then marriage really shouldn't mean much. 

 

Not entirely on topic Edgarcito, but I can't agree with your last, throwaway comment.

 

If life is something that just happens then it gains its meaning ONLY from us, the people living it.

 

Not from anywhere else and certainly not from any deity.

 

We alone are responsible to each other and to ourselves to give our lives (and by extension, our marriages) meaning. 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Just visiting with a young lady the other day

 

By visiting do you mean sinfully knocking boots with the young lady? sound like my ex's reason for divorce. Glad your in Texas. Lol.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

n some states, in the absence of a marriage license, when a man and woman share a home and live together for greater than some period (it varies from state to state) then they are married in common law as decreed by the state, without regard to the wishes of the two people involved.

 

This use to be the law in GA but thankfully threw it out a long time ago. I worked with a guy that could say he married his ex wife once and divorced her twice. It was because after they divorced the first time they lived together long enough to be common law married again. 

[alreadyGone]

It's interesting to me that the best possible time for a woman physically to bear children is when she is very young. In her late teens even.

 

Some women (and their male spouse) are mentally and emotionally ready and capable to raise children at such a young age. Surely this is the exception however...

 

And yet, the biological imperative for a woman to bear her children very young is what it is.

 

How does all that fit into the majority of Christian believers' opinion of marriage with regard to their Christian faith?

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

13 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

It's interesting to me that the best possible time for a woman physically to bear children is when she is very young. In her late teens even.

 

Some woman (and their male spouse) are mentally and emotionally ready and capable to raise children at such a young age. Surely this is the exception however...

 

And yet, the biological imperative for a woman to bear her children very young is what it is.

 

How does all that fit into the majority of Christian believers' opinion of marriage with regard to their Christian faith?

 

 

 

 

I'm gonna just have to insert an old bloodhound gang song here. "The Bad Touch" I chalk our over active hormones and child bearing peek to the fact that "we ain't nothing but mammals", doesn't matter that we aren't mature enough for children yet. Just another thing an all knowing God probably would have zapped out of us if he really existed. 

 

 

[alreadyGone]

DarkBishop has presented us with a concept:

 

"another thing and all knowing God probably would have zapped out of us [if he really existed]."

 

This has probably been discussed on this site before today, I do not know.

It is a fascinating aspect of "the God question" to me.

 

To my limited perceptions it seems there are various aspects of the nature of humankind which an all-knowing+all-loving God would not have wired into our being. But then, would a God have given us flatulence as a fundamental part of our digestive process?

 

Biology (and the biological evolution of a species) is what it is.

It doesn't care how we feel about it.

 

 

 

[WalterP]

27 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

DarkBishop has presented us with a concept:

 

"another thing and all knowing God probably would have zapped out of us [if he really existed]."

 

This has probably been discussed on this site before today, I do not know.

It is a fascinating aspect of "the God question" to me.

 

To my limited perceptions it seems there are various aspects of the nature of humankind which an all-knowing+all-loving God would not have wired into our being. But then, would a God have given us flatulence as a fundamental part of our digestive process?

 

Biology (and the biological evolution of a species) is what it is.

It doesn't care how we feel about it.

 

 

 

 

Romans 8 : 18 - 25

 

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.

19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 

20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 

21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 

23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 

24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 

25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

 

As a Christian I was taught that all of the flaws and faults of our bodies, our diseases and deformities and finally our deaths, were the result of Adam and Eve's sin in Eden. 

 

Flatulence is therefore a result of that original sin.

 

All of creation is in bondage to decay because two naïve innocents had the fate of the universe laid on their shoulders by a god who somehow forgot to tell them about it.

 

Who'd have thought that an all-knowing, perfect and infallible god could forget anything ?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[alreadyGone]

6 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

...All of creation is in bondage to decay because two naïve innocents had the fate of the universe laid on their shoulders by a god who somehow forgot to tell them about it.

 

Who'd have thought that an all-knowing, perfect and infallible god could forget anything ?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Told them, and then left the female alone to ponder all the wondrous superlatives that God used to describe that forbidden knowledge embedded into a piece of fruit. Fruit hanging there before her to be plucked with a simple gesture.

 

        The female... that gender with an innate thirst for mystery and novelty.

        

        

 

 

 

[alreadyGone]

18 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

.....

 

Flatulence is therefore a result of that original sin.

....

 

I dare you to use that excuse in a church service.. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

My second marriage might not have been valid on account we was cousins on my mama's side; but the other three was legit fer sure.

[WalterP]

2 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Told them, and then left the female alone to ponder all the wondrous superlatives that God used to describe that forbidden knowledge embedded into a piece of fruit. Fruit hanging there before her to be plucked with a simple gesture.

 

        The female... that gender with an innate thirst for mystery and novelty.

        

        

 

 

 

 

No, alreadygone.

 

God didn't tell them anything about their actions affecting the whole of creation.

 

All he did was to warn Adam (but not Eve) that on the day he (Adam) ate any of that forbidden fruit, he (Adam) would die.

 

That's all god said.

 

Nothing else.

 

No explanations.

 

No mention of anything or anyone else dying because of Adam's actions.

 

And certainly no mention that Eve would die on the day she ate that fruit.

 

God left Adam to work that out for himself.

 

Or not.

 

 

 

Walter.

[alreadyGone]

Walter...  that distinction had not ocurred to me at all.

Thank you for that.

 

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, alreadyGone said:

Walter...  that distinction had not ocurred to me at all.

Thank you for that.

 

 

No problem, AG.

 

What happened in Eden is off-topic, but I was trying to give the scriptural reason for flatulence.

 

We'd get back to the topic of marriage.

 

 

 

Would it be fair to say that flatulence has tested the validity of many a marriage?

 

 

 

 

[florduh]

If by "valid" you mean worthwhile, legitimizing a partnership and generally good for the society, then the answer is up to you. Obviously marriage is popular all over the world and throughout the ages, though it means and has meant many different things.

 

My personal view is that requiring official sanctions from official sources (religious or secular) actually cheapens and demeans a loving, committed relationship by reducing it to contractual obligations with legal ramifications. However, it seems societies, if not individuals, need such legal arrangements to function in their complex world of taxes, inheritance and property. More and more people are skipping the official vows and contracts anyway, but that comes with some risks and costs.

 

Valid? Your call.