Jump to content

Marriage


Edgarcito
 Share

Recommended Posts

My feelings on marriage:

  • It is a human institution, not a divine one; however, I grant that many people see it as having spiritual aspects.
  • Marriage vows are a contract between two individuals.  Any action that violates the terms of the contract (e.g. infidelity) automatically nullifies it, and then it has to be renegotiated from that point forward.  It is at the sole discretion of the aggrieved party to decide whether it's worthwhile continuing with the relationship.
  • Falling out of love is a valid reason to end a relationship.  If you can't bring all of yourself to the marriage, if your heart isn't in it anymore, if it feels like an increasing burden with no reasonable prospect of improvement, ending it is probably kinder than hanging on for years and years.
  • If you don't want to get married, don't.  Don't take those vows unless you intend to keep them.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Astreja said:

My feelings on marriage:

  • It is a human institution, not a divine one; however, I grant that many people see it as having spiritual aspects.
  • Marriage vows are a contract between two individuals.  Any action that violates the terms of the contract (e.g. infidelity) automatically nullifies it, and then it has to be renegotiated from that point forward.  It is at the sole discretion of the aggrieved party to decide whether it's worthwhile continuing with the relationship.
  • Falling out of love is a valid reason to end a relationship.  If you can't bring all of yourself to the marriage, if your heart isn't in it anymore, if it feels like an increasing burden with no reasonable prospect of improvement, ending it is probably kinder than hanging on for years and years.
  • If you don't want to get married, don't.  Don't take those vows unless you intend to keep them.

You have put out contradiction here....bullet 4 and bullet 3.  I've witness so many marriages where it's bliss in the beginning, difficulty in the middle, and damn near a perfect love in the end.  People celebrate these marriages.  Isn't the point to "keep them" in order to get through the difficult times?  I don't get it.  It's a contract until someone wants to rewrite the contract during the varied stages of life.  We already knew there would be varied stages.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

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...)

 

 

 

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience Christians believe marriage to be among the most holy of human interactions and customs. They always express the belief that marriage is instituted directly by the hand of God.

 

Young female Christians upon engagement always credit God with presenting to them their divinely-ordained mate for life. Usually with an expression "God is so good and faithful!" or some such.

 

If this were true, could we not expect that marriage would be more durable, more resilient to human frailty and weakness? Why would Christians be so fully accepting of the role government has taken in the marriage contract as final arbiter and judge?

 

Over the years I knew (only) one Christian couple who sought a minister to marry them without a license. The search took about two years, with most ministers refusing to even discuss it.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the anecdote is rather very much what we see in the Bible....marriage to Christ in trust an faith.  Don't quit running.  Commune together. Intimacy, Knowing.  Then Heaven in the end.  I don't really wish to argue about the history of marriage.  Just another observation that Josh and I find valid....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

In my experience Christians believe marriage to be among the most holy of human interactions and customs. They always express the belief that marriage is instituted directly by the hand of God.

 

Young female Christians upon engagement always credit God with presenting to them their divinely-ordained mate for life. Usually with an expression "God is so good and faithful!" or some such.

 

If this were true, could we not expect that marriage would be more durable, more resilient to human frailty and weakness? Why would Christians be so fully accepting of the role government has taken in the marriage contract as final arbiter and judge?

 

Over the years I knew (only) one Christian couple who sought a minister to marry them without a license. The search took about two years, with most ministers refusing to even discuss it.

 

 

 

 

Well look, the main theme in the Bible is to "know" through communing, praying, etc.  We may know Love through Christ's relationship with God the Father.  Then we would know God through our relationship with Chirst, ......and then other's know God/Love through our relationship with them.  Same in marriage, that we know the other person.....study, commune, pray for, support.  All the same values that get us through the difficult times in life, get us through that difficult time in marriage.  Seems rather straightforward...

 

When we actually know the other person, then I believe we are more likely to understand the faults and forgive the trespasses....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is "love", Edgar?

I believe that you could ask 100 people and you would get 112 answers.

With much disagreement and equivocation among them.

 

Surely something so devoid of clear definition is less than the end-all/be-all it is commonly held to be. Christians are fond of expressing "God is love".

If you do not or cannot have a clear concrete definition of "love" then how can you use it as a definitive in the sense of religious belief?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You have put out contradiction here....bullet 4 and bullet 3.  I've witness so many marriages where it's bliss in the beginning, difficulty in the middle, and damn near a perfect love in the end.  People celebrate these marriages.  Isn't the point to "keep them" in order to get through the difficult times?  I don't get it.  It's a contract until someone wants to rewrite the contract during the varied stages of life.  We already knew there would be varied stages.....

 

And sometimes (and this has been my experience) one goes in with the best of intentions and discovers something about the partner that would have precluded marrying them if that trait had been known up front.  "Difficulty" is not always fixable, and there is no virtue in suffering solely for the sake of maintaining a broken situation.  "Love is only love until it's gone," I once wrote in a song.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You have put out contradiction here....bullet 4 and bullet 3.  I've witness so many marriages where it's bliss in the beginning, difficulty in the middle, and damn near a perfect love in the end.  People celebrate these marriages.  Isn't the point to "keep them" in order to get through the difficult times?  I don't get it.  It's a contract until someone wants to rewrite the contract during the varied stages of life.  We already knew there would be varied stages.....

 

Some of us older people know there are varying stages. Younger people, maybe not. People often ignore red flags during the honeymoon phase or pair bonding phase then later those red flags are an obstacle to happiness. 

 

Fortunately society knows that people dont make good choices and offers the divorce option, which I imagine has reduced the number of potential homicides since the inception of legal marriage. 

 

You say the point is to keep the marriage going through difficult times. I agree up to a point. But if the difficult time starts getting longer than the happy time and you dont really foresee any improvement... then it's no longer a marriage. It's just two unhappy people living together. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alreadyGone said:

What is "love", Edgar?

I believe that you could ask 100 people and you would get 112 answers.

With much disagreement and equivocation among them.

 

Surely something so devoid of clear definition is less than the end-all/be-all it is commonly held to be. Christians are fond of expressing "God is love".

If you do not or cannot have a clear concrete definition of "love" then how can you use it as a definitive in the sense of religious belief?

 

 

 

The point being, "love" is that thing unique to each of us as each of us are unique.  My difficulties and yours are different, as are anyone else's.  And the reason we hear "the message" differently.  Which makes it paramount that we continue to participate/commune with another to define and understand those things unique to an individual.  Love is more likely that process, that we are then "one" as Josh explains...  Again, that we know one another....

 

Florduh probably likes mustard on his watermelon.  It's sacrilege, but we recognize this in him, laugh, and he's still one with us despite the faulty taste buds... 

 

And it took us years to learn this about him..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The point being, "love" is that thing unique to each of us as each of us are unique.  My difficulties and yours are different, as are anyone else's.  And the reason we hear "the message" differently.  ...

 

Love is therefore entirely subjective.

So how then can we rationally use "love" as the centerpoint of an entire belief system on which to govern our lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

Love is therefore entirely subjective.

So how then can we rationally use "love" as the centerpoint of an entire belief system on which to govern our lives?

Good question.  I'm thinking at this point, after my "debate" with Josh regarding spirituality, that there might be an innate something in us that recognizes the balance that is existence, i.e. a part of the natural world.....and that we also want to do that, the justice that is balance, in our consciousness as part of that creation/existence.  In other words, some people see the balance in physics, chemistry, and the universe......and I'm thinking this balance is similar in our consciousness.  By justice, I mean we either like or dislike, agree or disagree, associate or disassociate, given our needs.  BUT, the need for balance still remains in us.  Seeing empathy for the homeless but anger for them not working might be an example.  New thoughts to me actually....but I think marginally cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

Love is therefore entirely subjective.

So how then can we rationally use "love" as the centerpoint of an entire belief system on which to govern our lives?

I didn't really answer your question now that I re read. Per the Old Testament example, I don't think we know the enough to govern ourselves such that the outcome follows any theoretical absolute.  We just don't have the capability.  Promote balance as well as we are subjectively able.  Not even sure then.  Who knows if my imbalance is necessary for balance somewhere else in some larger plan.  Would be interesting to review the commandments again an see if the jive with my theory...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

And sometimes (and this has been my experience) one goes in with the best of intentions and discovers something about the partner that would have precluded marrying them if that trait had been known up front.  "Difficulty" is not always fixable, and there is no virtue in suffering solely for the sake of maintaining a broken situation.  "Love is only love until it's gone," I once wrote in a song.

This is exactly why I think a couple should live together for fairly significant amount of time before they marry. If I had known my EX was almost never going to cook for me even when she didn't work and I had worked for 12 hours in the grueling summer heat sometimes, or that she would be the type tho suggest divorce in heated arguments so Feely. I may not have married her. But then I wouldn't have my daughter. Well....... might not have. Not being married doesn't stop sperm lmao. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

The point being, "love" is that thing unique to each of us as each of us are unique. 

So, if "love" is subjective, and god is love... what does that tell you about god?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Good question.  I'm thinking at this point, after my "debate" with Josh regarding spirituality, that there might be an innate something in us that recognizes the balance that is existence, i.e. a part of the natural world.....and that we also want to do that, the justice that is balance, in our consciousness as part of that creation/existence.  In other words, some people see the balance in physics, chemistry, and the universe......and I'm thinking this balance is similar in our consciousness.  By justice, I mean we either like or dislike, agree or disagree, associate or disassociate, given our needs.  BUT, the need for balance still remains in us.  Seeing empathy for the homeless but anger for them not working might be an example.  New thoughts to me actually....but I think marginally cool.

 

Edgarcito,

 

 

In the past you've forcefully argued that this universe is broken because of sin.

 

So how can the natural world have an innate balance if its broken?

 

How can there be balance in physics and chemistry if the universe is broken?

 

Which is it, Edgarcito?

 

Is reality broken and unbalanced or is it unbroken and balanced?

 

It can't be both.

 

Your call.

 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I didn't really answer your question now that I re read. Per the Old Testament example, I don't think we know the enough to govern ourselves such that the outcome follows any theoretical absolute.  We just don't have the capability.  Promote balance as well as we are subjectively able.  Not even sure then.  Who knows if my imbalance is necessary for balance somewhere else in some larger plan.  Would be interesting to review the commandments again an see if the jive with my theory...

 

Governance is a practical matter, not a theoretical one.

 

So, invoking a theoretical absolute is not relevant to matters of human governance.

 

We should aspire for what is practical and attainable, not that which is unattainable.

 

 

Walter. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, WalterP said:

....

We should aspire for what is practical and attainable, not that which is unattainable.

 

 

Walter. 

 

 

I still want that jet-pack they promised us in the '60's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Governance is a practical matter, not a theoretical one.

 

So, invoking a theoretical absolute is not relevant to matters of human governance.

 

We should aspire for what is practical and attainable, not that which is unattainable.

 

 

Walter. 

 

 

Practical as a function of unable to attain a theoretical.  We would all like people to be happy, have X and Y and Z......a theoretical, but yes, we only have practical as our inability to produce anything else.  We invoke it all the time.  We should aspire to what is unattainable and marry that to practical.  

 

We obviously are different people...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

Edgarcito,

 

 

In the past you've forcefully argued that this universe is broken because of sin.

 

So how can the natural world have an innate balance if its broken?

 

How can there be balance in physics and chemistry if the universe is broken?

 

Which is it, Edgarcito?

 

Is reality broken and unbalanced or is it unbroken and balanced?

 

It can't be both.

 

Your call.

 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

My mind plays tricks on me every now and then.  When I look at my subjective view of nature, a sunset perhaps, I think balance.  But we know that it's a wildly dynamic event.  Is the constant state of turmoil "broken"?  Isn't it working towards an equilibrium? Is that broken and the equilibrium balance?  To the latter, I don't think we know due to perspective....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Practical as a function of unable to attain a theoretical.  We would all like people to be happy, have X and Y and Z......a theoretical, but yes, we only have practical as our inability to produce anything else.  We invoke it all the time.  We should aspire to what is unattainable and marry that to practical.  

 

We obviously are different people...

 

The unattainable and the practical are mutually exclusive conditions.

 

A square circle?

 

Dry wetness?

 

?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

My mind plays tricks on me every now and then.  When I look at my subjective view of nature, a sunset perhaps, I think balance.  But we know that it's a wildly dynamic event.  Is the constant state of turmoil "broken"?  Isn't it working towards an equilibrium? Is that broken and the equilibrium balance?  To the latter, I don't think we know due to perspective....

 

Yes, your mind was playing a trick on you when you wrote about reality being in balance, Edgarcito.

 

Your forgot that you've long argued that it isn't because of original sin.

 

So, when it comes to this thread, where are you on this?

 

Is the universe broken and unbalanced or balanced and unbroken?

 

It's still your call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.