| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Marriage |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 10:24 AM |
| Do you feel that marriage should have an important place in our society? Yes [ 31 ] [60.78%] No [ 20 ] [39.22%] Total Votes: 51 |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 10:25 AM |
| Posted by: Emperor Norton II Feb 26 2004, 04:09 PM We had a big discussion on this in Philosophy Club here at BSU- figured I would ask if we should still be using marriage for social structure if it isn't working. Posted by: CodeWarren Feb 26 2004, 04:12 PM Do you mean marriage in a religious context? Your poll seems a bit bare bones, because I support unions (I guess you could call it marriage) between two people, and think they should have breaks if they raise children. But marriage as a religious institution I don't support because it is holding a monopoly on peoples' rights to be together. Posted by: Sanguine Feb 26 2004, 04:32 PM It has an important place in our society, but it needs to be stripped of all religious implications. Which would probably help lower the divorce rate alittle. Posted by: Emperor Norton II Feb 26 2004, 04:48 PM I meant for it to be a bit bare-bones... Posted by: Lokmer Feb 26 2004, 05:04 PM The social contract for the raising of children and the joining of two or more lives in partnership is basic to the foundation and continuation of human culture, so, in that sense, marriage will always be with us. That that contract include sexual relations is common but certainly not universal, likewise with sexual exclusivity, likewise with it being a two person deal. But marriage as solely a one-man one-woman thing has really got to go. Those sorts of unions are fine and sometimes quite wonderful, but the attitude that it is an ideal one-size-fits-all arangement that is in the best interests of children is myopic, naive, and victorian. -Lokmer Posted by: chefranden Feb 26 2004, 05:21 PM QUOTE (_rodan_ @ Feb 26 2004, 06:09 PM) We had a big discussion on this in Philosophy Club here at BSU- figured I would ask if we should still be using marriage for social structure if it isn't working. What do you mean by not working? Isn't civil marriage an attempt to protect children and provide equitable property sharing when relationships dissolve? If we were an actual monogamous species like Canadian Geese marriage would not be needed because we would actually stay together 'til death do us part. If marriage laws are not providing protection and a working processes of getting out of a relationship, it would seem that further reform is necissary not an abandonment to marital anarchy. Once gay marriage is established we may be able to separate marriage and religion and establish an institution that accomplishes the above goals. Gay marriage may be just the thing to get people thinking outside of the box marriagewise. Posted by: Doug2 Feb 26 2004, 05:27 PM I don't buy the concept that we need to be married in order to have children. (Which is the only good argument I see at all for marriage). There are many couples who have children, have been together for decades, and are not married. Fifty percent of all marriages fail, and many of the marriages that are still together are not happy. I don't see any benefit. If the two of you commit to stay together for the children you will do so with or without a marriage. The marriage is not magical and if anything only holds together relationships that should not be. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Feb 26 2004, 05:46 PM Marriage is about saying this is the person you really love, and want to belong to each other. Marriage is supposed to be about being with the person who is your soul mate, but marriage today is a bunch of crap. Why is that? I blame, not a lack of faith, but social degredation of the issue. I am willing to bet that there are just as many unhappy couples as there were in the 1500s. The only diffrence is that divorce is cheap and easy. People get married too easily and for the wrong reasons. Something my conservative friend says: "It's too easy to get married and too easy to get divorced. Marriage has become a joke in this country. If it were harder to do both you would see a sure plummet of divorce rates." Then again he's also against affermative action. Silly republicans. Posted by: chefranden Feb 26 2004, 05:51 PM Doug, Again I say, marriage is not about staying together it is about coming apart. From a religious prospective it is about adding plenty of supernatural marriage glue and plenty of community glue to keep the couple together through the worst. Marriage has changed civilly to provide the protection of children and division of property and better equity between the sexes. It is a contract that provides or rather attempts to provide for that contingency. The answer is not marital anarchy, but further reform. Getting rid of marriage will not prevent the dissolution of relationships. The dissolution of relationship is what needs to be provided for. Posted by: moorezw Feb 26 2004, 06:16 PM When I was married, the priest gave us a present in the middle of the ceremony. He handed a box of Waterford crystal to us as we were kneeling at the front of the chapel, and I opened it to find only an empty depression in the packing material. "I think you're a wonderful couple," he said, "but I'll be darned if I'm going to give away Waterford crystal! But there's another point I wanted to make: that marriage is as empty as this box. Don't expect marriage to solve any problems for you- it's only as beneficial as what you put into it." He's right, of course. Ultimately, the value of marriage to individuals and society can be found in the strength of love and devotion that two people share. I don't think of a piece of paper when I look into my wife's eyes; I think of how much she means to me and how we constantly work to bring joy into each others' lives. Incidentally, right after pronouncing us, the priest pulled the missing piece of crytal from under his robe and gave it to us. Posted by: Doug2 Feb 26 2004, 07:18 PM QUOTE (chefranden @ Feb 26 2004, 05:51 PM) Doug, Again I say, marriage is not about staying together it is about coming apart. From a religious prospective it is about adding plenty of supernatural marriage glue and plenty of community glue to keep the couple together through the worst. Marriage has changed civilly to provide the protection of children and division of property and better equity between the sexes. It is a contract that provides or rather attempts to provide for that contingency. The answer is not marital anarchy, but further reform. Getting rid of marriage will not prevent the dissolution of relationships. The dissolution of relationship is what needs to be provided for. Chef, Got what you are saying this time around. This is something I will have to think about. For now I will say that I don't think your perpective of marriage is the one most people have when they go to get one. I've never been married so I have not been divorced, hence I know little about the protection of rights marriage grants to those that are breaking up. I would rather see a seperate document (say prenub type thing) that any couple can get. I don't think one couple should get tax breaks, etc, just because they had a ceremony, and another couple should not. Maybe this is part of the reform you want to see. I think I will bow out, and read some comments for a while. P.S. ZW, good story. Posted by: big bill Feb 26 2004, 11:00 PM QUOTE (_rodan_ @ Feb 26 2004, 04:09 PM) We had a big discussion on this in Philosophy Club here at BSU- figured I would ask if we should still be using marriage for social structure if it isn't working. Listen. I like you, Rodan. You seem like a nice enough guy. But don't take everything your professors tell you to heart. Of course we shouldn't toss marriage into the bin. That's why this country is suffering now--because of broken families. Marriage is for the purpose of children. A child needs both a mother and father. Those professors live in an insulated protected world. Although intelligent, they often lack common sense. Posted by: BillJ Feb 27 2004, 12:01 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Feb 26 2004, 09:16 PM) When I was married, the priest gave us a present in the middle of the ceremony. He handed a box of Waterford crystal to us as we were kneeling at the front of the chapel, and I opened it to find only an empty depression in the packing material. "I think you're a wonderful couple," he said, "but I'll be darned if I'm going to give away Waterford crystal! But there's another point I wanted to make: that marriage is as empty as this box. Don't expect marriage to solve any problems for you- it's only as beneficial as what you put into it." He's right, of course. Ultimately, the value of marriage to individuals and society can be found in the strength of love and devotion that two people share. I don't think of a piece of paper when I look into my wife's eyes; I think of how much she means to me and how we constantly work to bring joy into each others' lives. Incidentally, right after pronouncing us, the priest pulled the missing piece of crytal from under his robe and gave it to us. That was deep! Posted by: fool_ps14:1 Feb 27 2004, 04:15 AM not too long ago, I believed that marriage was a load of crap, a religious institution with no real value it today's society. However my lover and I were in a difficult situation. I am canadian, she is american. the only way for us to deal with the immigration issue and be together was for us to get married. This was a life changing experience for the both of us. Although the vows we said to each other that day were no different than the promises we had made to each other previously, for some reason this was different. It may have been the formal ceremony that we had in front of our families, it may have been the legal documentation that accompanied it, I'm not sure, but I believe that the marriage strengthened our relationship. I'm not saying that marriage is a fix-all bandage that can bind two people together in eternal bliss, far from that. It still requires a lot of work, cooperation, communication, etc. Posted by: Skankboy Feb 27 2004, 07:17 AM QUOTE I don't think one couple should get tax breaks, etc, just because they had a ceremony, and another couple should not. I think Doug2 his the nail on the head here. If marriage is defined as a religous institution between a man and woman, fine. But by that same token the government (which is not allowed to support on religion over any other) should grant the same rights to "civil unions", no matter what the gender combination, as they do "marriages", no matter what the religion. These people aren't trying to overthrow the country! They just want the same visitation rights at the hospitals, insurance benefits and recognition by the govt. that is already given to other couples. Big bill, you talk about "broken marriages" being the downfall of this country. These are people who WANT to get married and provide a stable social unit for america and you DON'T want to let them. I think it was George Carlin who said he couldn't understand why gays and xtians couldn't get along. Xtians were against abortion and gays don't reproduce. You'd think they'd be natural allies! Posted by: agnosticated Feb 27 2004, 07:45 AM fool - - I went through the exact same situation. I don't believe in marriage as necessity for a couple in love. I am also Canadian and my partner (now husband) is English. For us to be able to stay together we were almost forced to be married. It was really frustrating that our hand was pushed to do something that neither of us were in favour of. Marriage in my view is a carry over from ages past when people were required for either religious or political reasons to stay together. Being with someone monogamously, voluntarily and maturely is a liberating experience. I have been married before and found it really quite painful when we divorced to realise that I had been forced (by my beliefs and family tradition/culture) to make a promise to 'God' and everyone present. A promise that neither one of us could have possibly known we weren't ready to keep. To make such a solemn promise is a hefty requirement which is unnecessary in my opinion. Obviously now I see the solemnity was all a sham. Even so - love doesn't need a signed contract. Lawyers and politicians require signed pieces of paper. People who don't trust each other require them too. When you start asking for someone's signature to their vow - it's time to question if you really trust that person. If someone isn't trustworthy, no vow on earth will ever make them more trustworthy. Here is a verse from the Bible for the Christians: QUOTE 'Swear not by anything in heaven or in hell... ' and QUOTE 'Let your yay be yay and your nay be nay' Jesus said that. So Biblically speaking, even vows are against the rules. tsk tsk ~agnosticated~ Posted by: phoenix Feb 27 2004, 11:02 AM i think the concept as a whole is a good idea. if there are to be children, it is nice for them to grow up in a two person family, so that there is usually someone there for them. whether it is a heterosexual or homosexual marriage does not matter. it's also nice for the benefits - i.e. being able to visit your partner in the hospital, inheritance due to death, etc. Posted by: Tocis Feb 27 2004, 12:58 PM QUOTE (_rodan_ @ Feb 26 2004, 04:09 PM) We had a big discussion on this in Philosophy Club here at BSU- figured I would ask if we should still be using marriage for social structure if it isn't working. You leave the term awfully ill-defined Rodan, but I think if two people (regardless of gender) are willing to spend much time and effort to make a partnership work, and last long, they should be honored for it. Further details of my opinion would depend on details of your definition. (Of course, civil marriage and religious marriage (no matter of what faith) need to be kept completely separate as the interests of state and (any) church naturally can't be the same. If fundies don't want a couple to get blessed by their gawd, fine with me - but they have no right to mess with what the state calls marriage.) Posted by: Skankboy Mar 2 2004, 12:45 PM QUOTE You leave the term awfully ill-defined Rodan, but I think if two people (regardless of gender) are willing to spend much time and effort to make a partnership work, and last long, they should be honored for it. Further details of my opinion would depend on details of your definition. (Of course, civil marriage and religious marriage (no matter of what faith) need to be kept completely separate as the interests of state and (any) church naturally can't be the same. If fundies don't want a couple to get blessed by their gawd, fine with me - but they have no right to mess with what the state calls marriage.) Exactly Tocis. I think this whole thing really does come down to a separation of church and state issue. In the past the govt has given certain benefits to those who participated in certain religious ceremonies (ie marriage) but at the same time created a non-religious way to also get those same benefits (ie civil union). The only problem is now that the homosexuals want the same benefits as any other couple, the definitions are getting all scued and everyone's crying that the "gays are trying to destroy marriage." With the divorce rates among heterosexuals so high, what right do we have to say that this isn't a "true" partnership between two people? Posted by: michelle Mar 2 2004, 08:54 PM I dont think its important, not where I live. Like SpaceFalcon said alot of people get married too easily and for the wrong reasons. Its almost like its become the socialable thing to do. I also notice that marriage alot of the times seems to be about PROVING your love to everybody else. Marriage has it benefits for taxes and health insurance though. If a couple has been living together for years & know they want to be together for life and one partner gets a job with health insurance why not get married? See to me its less about proving your committment to the world then it is getting something out of it together, like health insurance. Alot of people would say thats a wrong reason to get married but Im talking about people who already want and have a lifetime committment. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Mar 3 2004, 05:42 PM QUOTE (michelle @ Mar 2 2004, 11:54 PM) Like SpaceFalcon said alot of people get married too easily and for the wrong reasons. Its almost like its become the socialable thing to do. I also notice that marriage alot of the times seems to be about PROVING your love to everybody else. Marriage has it benefits for taxes and health insurance though. If a couple has been living together for years & know they want to be together for life and one partner gets a job with health insurance why not get married? Example in point: Michelle agrees with me! Marry me michelle! (Just an example, not that I don't you, *hugz!*) People are getting married way to fast, some as little as less than a month after they meet. Sometimes that can be good, but the typical result is not. In the majority of dating scenarios for most of the last few centuries, people would be courting each other for upwards of 3-9 years. Tell me how that time wouldn't be benefical to today's couples. Also, in any case, people should plan for divorce. Maybe that's part of the problem, but people so easily marry without really getting to know the person, or even if they do, they should have a prenuptual, just in case. Some women may get offended by that, but if they can't handle the idea that something could happen that could rip them apart, they are not ready to marry. Also, divorce needs to be better run in this country. The majority of divorce cases are some of the worst instances of "law" I've ever seen. Posted by: chefranden Mar 3 2004, 05:52 PM Sweetie and I married in less than 3 months. We've been together 31 years now. Of course that is no garantee that it will last. However, there ought to be some more rational basis for choosing a spouse than lust, which I admit was my basis. I think it was Sweetie's too, but I doubt she would admit it. The http://www.eharmony.com/core/eharmony?cmd=homeguy seems to have a good idea about a better process, even if his hype is only half true. I'd give it a shot if I was looking anyway. Posted by: Doug2 Mar 3 2004, 07:46 PM QUOTE (chefranden @ Mar 3 2004, 05:52 PM) The http://www.eharmony.com/core/eharmony?cmd=homeguy seems to have a good idea about a better process, even if his hype is only half true. I'd give it a shot if I was looking anyway. Ugh, seen that site. Have it in my to do list. There is something like 20 pages to answer about yourself. I guess it is a sign that if you are too lazy to do that, then you are too lazy to be in a relationship. Maybe they can match people who check the first box that says "No way am I filling out 20 pages" then I can be in a relationship where both people are too lazy to get together and talk. We can just send a card to each other on valentines day and have a fake relationship. Posted by: gecko Mar 3 2004, 08:10 PM I've vacillated for quite a long time now on what I think about marriage. Some months in some years I think, "If I had it to do all over again....I'd never marry but rather just live together." Other months and years I think the opposite. Marriage vows are meaningless at the point where one or the other partner no longer takes them seriously. Posted by: michelle Mar 4 2004, 09:08 PM Gecko, I hear ya on the vows. Aint it funny when a person who doesnt love themselves, cant love another? Its self hatred. Posted by: Starflier Mar 4 2004, 10:50 PM QUOTE (chefranden @ Mar 3 2004, 05:52 PM) Sweetie and I married in less than 3 months. We've been together 31 years now. Of course that is no garantee that it will last. However, there ought to be some more rational basis for choosing a spouse than lust, which I admit was my basis. I think it was Sweetie's too, but I doubt she would admit it. The http://www.eharmony.com/core/eharmony?cmd=homeguy seems to have a good idea about a better process, even if his hype is only half true. I'd give it a shot if I was looking anyway. I think lust & love are good bed mates anyday for a marriage Rx. I checked out the eharmony site but it seemed too xtian for me, though not exclusively so, & based on people meeting with marriage as the goal. Also there's a ton of questions to answer for every little comment a potential partner makes. The two people can't even email each other directly without going through selecting one of a list of intended questions to the other person & then having to go through paragraphs of material explaining it all. It seemed an exhausting, time consuming psychotherapeutic process to go through. I passed on it. Also since I don't want to marry again. Posted by: Starflier Mar 4 2004, 11:00 PM QUOTE (Doug2 @ Mar 3 2004, 07:46 PM) QUOTE (chefranden @ Mar 3 2004, 05:52 PM) The http://www.eharmony.com/core/eharmony?cmd=homeguy seems to have a good idea about a better process, even if his hype is only half true. I'd give it a shot if I was looking anyway. Ugh, seen that site. Have it in my to do list. There is something like 20 pages to answer about yourself. I answered their ton of questions & then did the free trial thing for a while. It's exhausting & not worth the effort if you know anything at all about yourself already or what you want in a marriage partner. See my previous post on this. Posted by: HeathenM0M Mar 6 2004, 08:50 AM I think marriage should remain an important part of our society. However, gay couples should be give the same rights as straight couples. I always find it amusing when people say that gay people aren't monogomous, while these same people want to keep it illegal for them to marry. Posted by: Aryan Mar 6 2004, 08:59 AM QUOTE (chefranden @ Mar 3 2004, 08:52 PM) Sweetie and I married in less than 3 months. We've been together 31 years now. Of course that is no garantee that it will last. However, there ought to be some more rational basis for choosing a spouse than lust, which I admit was my basis. I think it was Sweetie's too, but I doubt she would admit it. The http://www.eharmony.com/core/eharmony?cmd=homeguy seems to have a good idea about a better process, even if his hype is only half true. I'd give it a shot if I was looking anyway. Same here. 5 months and 30 years. I believe there is a lot of truth in the old song by the Turtles QUOTE http://ynucc.yeungnam.ac.kr/~bwlee/lyrics/happtg.htm Me and you And you and me No matter how they tossed the dice It had to be The only one for me is you And you for me So happy together Posted by: Luck Mermaid Jun 4 2004, 04:44 PM Marriage had a purpose, and now, at least in North American society, the necessity and the effectiveness of marriage for either economic, social or emotional needs is waning. I expect that if it's meant to go, it will, naturally in it's own time. We're already seeing a breakdown, and maybe it will fully break down, or repair itself with some changes. Barring another 'day after tomorrow ' style ice age, in which case we'll probably all be stuck with fat wifebeating husbands and five kids. Posted by: SaviorForSale Jun 4 2004, 05:07 PM I'm engaged to my girlfriend now... only problem is: I dont want to get married in a church..but I dont want to just sign papers at the courthouse either...any ideas? Posted by: phoenix Jun 4 2004, 05:30 PM check these out for ideas, savior. http://www.nonreligiousweddings.com/ http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/weddings.html http://www.atheistparents.org/pages.php?sc=001&pg=0162 Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jun 4 2004, 05:32 PM Get married by a judge. "Justice of the peace". Posted by: Lokmer Jun 5 2004, 10:17 AM QUOTE (Doug2 @ Mar 3 2004, 08:46 PM) QUOTE (chefranden @ Mar 3 2004, 05:52 PM) The http://www.eharmony.com/core/eharmony?cmd=homeguy seems to have a good idea about a better process, even if his hype is only half true. I'd give it a shot if I was looking anyway. Ugh, seen that site. Have it in my to do list. There is something like 20 pages to answer about yourself. I guess it is a sign that if you are too lazy to do that, then you are too lazy to be in a relationship. The "EHarmony" guy has been in the marriage compatability business for years - before he was running a dating service he was doing books and seminars on "Christian Marriage compatability." His compatability testing might be extensive, but all that can guarrantee is that the person he fixes you up with has similar ideas and beliefs about things at the moment. It makes no provision for how people grow, and doesn't in any way ensure success. In other words, his shtick is a more sophistocated version of standard, run-of-the-mill, Christian pop-psych bullshit. He's selling easy answers, but he dresses them up in such a way that they don't look like easy answers. I can barely resist the urge to smash the radio sometimes when his ads come on. -Lokmer Posted by: SaviorForSale Jun 5 2004, 11:07 AM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jun 5 2004, 10:17 AM) QUOTE (Doug2 @ Mar 3 2004, 08:46 PM) QUOTE (chefranden @ Mar 3 2004, 05:52 PM) The http://www.eharmony.com/core/eharmony?cmd=homeguy seems to have a good idea about a better process, even if his hype is only half true. I'd give it a shot if I was looking anyway. Ugh, seen that site. Have it in my to do list. There is something like 20 pages to answer about yourself. I guess it is a sign that if you are too lazy to do that, then you are too lazy to be in a relationship. The "EHarmony" guy has been in the marriage compatability business for years - before he was running a dating service he was doing books and seminars on "Christian Marriage compatability." His compatability testing might be extensive, but all that can guarrantee is that the person he fixes you up with has similar ideas and beliefs about things at the moment. It makes no provision for how people grow, and doesn't in any way ensure success. In other words, his shtick is a more sophistocated version of standard, run-of-the-mill, Christian pop-psych bullshit. He's selling easy answers, but he dresses them up in such a way that they don't look like easy answers. I can barely resist the urge to smash the radio sometimes when his ads come on. -Lokmer penn and teller did a good show about that Posted by: blessed75 Jun 8 2004, 04:13 PM QUOTE (Skankboy @ Feb 27 2004, 07:17 AM) QUOTE I don't think one couple should get tax breaks, etc, just because they had a ceremony, and another couple should not. I think Doug2 his the nail on the head here. If marriage is defined as a religous institution between a man and woman, fine. But by that same token the government (which is not allowed to support on religion over any other) should grant the same rights to "civil unions", no matter what the gender combination, as they do "marriages", no matter what the religion. These people aren't trying to overthrow the country! They just want the same visitation rights at the hospitals, insurance benefits and recognition by the govt. that is already given to other couples. Big bill, you talk about "broken marriages" being the downfall of this country. These are people who WANT to get married and provide a stable social unit for america and you DON'T want to let them. I think it was George Carlin who said he couldn't understand why gays and xtians couldn't get along. Xtians were against abortion and gays don't reproduce. You'd think they'd be natural allies! I agreed with you till you got to the George Carlin remark smart ass! I AM A believer and I'm pro-choice AND have NO problems with gays. OH! But WAIT - I'll say it before another fundie does - I'm watered-down and not a true Christian b/c of this - I'm a murderer and everything I say is complete BLASPHEMY! (I hate that word) Sorry, got off track. See - I'm bitter too. Posted by: blessed75 Jun 8 2004, 04:15 PM QUOTE (SaviorForSale @ Jun 4 2004, 05:07 PM) I'm engaged to my girlfriend now... only problem is: I dont want to get married in a church..but I dont want to just sign papers at the courthouse either...any ideas? I got married at the courthouse but it was outside on a gaezbo type thing. It was really beautiful too. You don't necessairly have to get married INSIDE the courthouse - you could get married in the mountains at a b&b or on the beach etc. Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com) © Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com) |