Marriage and it's supposed sanctity

[vidcc]

Before it gets raised this has nothing to do with gay marriage.



What is the sanctity of marriage?

On a thread in the lounge the subject was rasied because of a pregnancy out of wedlock.

But is that a reason for marriage?

To me the sanctity comes in a total package of love and loyalty between two people and the very thought of a "shotgun" marriage is demeaning to that theory.
The idea of marriage is being eroded by the ease of divorce and the lack of seriousness by those that enter into it lightly.
This is not an attack on divorce. People make mistakes and shouldn't have to pay with an unhappy unworkable marriage, i am purely pointing to those that do enter into the contract flippently.

A marriage is about the commitment between two people, not the ceromony or the officialness that goes with it. Two people that live out of wedlock for life and love each other, are loyal etc. etc. are more married than two that have the official version but don't have their hearts in it.

This isn't a total summation but a few thoughts on the subject.

[ruthie]

I agree, Vid. I think we live in a "disposable society"....probably not quite the words I'm lookingfor, but...
People are disposable like garbage. I think alot of people don't really think through the seriousness of marraige and all it entails.
The word "commitment" is terrifying to some people. That's a whole other issue..some of them marry without exploring what the fear is about, and some use it as an excuse.
Shot-gun weddings are ridiculous, and unfortunately, not a thing of the past. Personally, I think...oops. we're pregnant is the worst reason for marraige Then there are those that think a baby will hold the marraige together...known as a "cement" baby. Another horrible idea.
At this stage of life, I see marraige differently. I was married many years ago..divorced after 4 years. I'm engaged now..I am with the man I want to go through the rest of my life with...however, I see marraige as taking care of business too..such as pensions, social security, etc..I see it as a way to protect each other financially...and it would seem to me that one would want to know their partner would be OK if something happened to them.

[j2k4]

My hat's off to the both of you.

I'd not have guessed either of you felt quite as you apparently do, which means, of course, that if I want to weigh in, here, I'll have to come up with more.

'Til then, then... :)

[vidcc]

My hat's off to the both of you.

I'd not have guessed either of you felt quite as you apparently do, which means, of course, that if I want to weigh in, here, I'll have to come up with more.

'Til then, then... :)
not sure exactly what to make of that but i await the "something more" with great antici.........................................................................................
.....................................................................................pation

[Rat Faced]

antici.........................................................................................
.....................................................................................pation


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Never took you for a Rocky fan ;)

[vidcc]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Never took you for a Rocky fan ;)
i was trying to remember where that came from...... I did enjoy the film version...never seen it on stage and am not a big fan, however that particular line seemed to have stuck :lol: :lol:

At jpaul...don't take everything so litteral. Terms and usage of words change over time and society uses them in more than the original purest form.

Howevery if you wish to be such a purest, and you are within your rights to be so, then please take the meaning of the thread as is is intended and ignore the 450 B.C. dictionary definition. :)

[ruthie]

Well, what is sanctity to you? I get tired of hearing that God has to be in everything.
To me, love is sacred..period. How you define the word sacred is up to you..if you see it purely in the religious context...well there are many "religions" or beliefs that people are devoted to, and that religion might not even be recognized by some...including no religious belief at all.
I reiterate..love is sacred in and of itself. Let go of the biblical BS.
Don't you think it's unfortunate that one only has certain rights as a married person? I think it's horrible.

[vidcc]

I had started to explain that in order to communicate we must all use the same language, to avoid ambiguity and confusion. I then remembered that you would just get all precious about it and decided not to bother.

So I will just ask that you look up a more modern dictionary and establish what the word actually means, not what you think it means. We respond to what you say, not to what you think you said.

No matter what you, or anyone else thinks, the actual words we use and how we use them is important in getting our intended meaning across. If there is confusion it is more often the fault of the author than the reader.
you are still ten of the most boring people i know of

Edit: to humour you i decided to check a few "more modern" dictionaries...seems it is used in other than just religious term :whistling

[j2k4]

Ruthie-

Anent your post and JPaul's; as he said re: the definitions of words-merely creating context for what you say (after you have said it) is not sufficient to change it's meaning, nor is an urge to denegrate the meaning of any particular word circa 450 B.C. (B.C.? check the origin of that, please), but you might explore the origins of the word sacred.

Have you bidden anyone Goodbye, today?

Check that one, too.

BTW-Why are you so willing to give up the ghost over the word sanctify?

Don't you like it? :)

[manker]

I think this (possibly misguided) thread title sums up my feelings about marriage.

If I've taken JP's post at it's intended meaning, which I think I have, then sanctity relates to a religeous ethos. I am not religeous so I have no use for the sanctity of marriage.

I see marriage, among other things, as a declaration to the world that you and your partner love each other and that you wish to spend the rest of your life in a monogamous relationship with that person. I also have no use for this. So long as the lady I've chosen to spend my life with knows this fact, I could care not one jot about what others think, provided she is satisfied with the commitment I have made to her everything is fine.

The vows that are exchanged can be implicit in a relationship without the necessity of a legal contract. One can be aware of obligations that yourself and your partner choose to have have toward each other, and honour them. A legal contract to enforce this is not a prerequsite.

[vidcc]

the point is that words evolve and take on extra definitions through usage over time. This doesn't mean that the original meaning ceases.....and just because there was an original meaning that didn't include the modern usage doesn't mean the modern usage is incorrect. This is also how new words evolve into a language.

I have a feeling that with todays text messaging usage there will be a point where words such as "later" will be accepteable to spell using "L8R"

However.... stay on the marriage thread please

[j2k4]

the point is that words evolve and take on extra definitions through usage over time. This doesn't mean that the original meaning ceases.....and just because there was an original meaning that didn't include the modern usage doesn't mean the modern usage is incorrect. This is also how new words evolve into a language.

I have a feeling that with todays text messaging usage there will be a point where words such as "later" will be accepteable to spell using "L8R"

However.... stay on the marriage thread please

Sorry to stray just for one more post, but as you note that words change and/or take on new/additional meaning(s) over time, surely you must see the difficulties arising therefrom between people over even normal conversation, depending on which of these myriad meanings are subscribed to by each the utterer and the listener?

Logic militates against this practice, I assure you, but I'm am also aware of it's favor and utility with those who practice nuance.

John Kerry leaps to mind... :P

[clocker]

therefrom

Now that is one ugly, awkward word.
Ranks right up there with "anent", another of your faves, I notice.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to report this post to the authorities.

[j2k4]

Now that is one ugly, awkward word.
Ranks right up there with "anent", another of your faves, I notice.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to report this post to the authorities.

Yes, yes...and the rest of the post?

[Storm]

lol

sacred:
1) concerned with religion or religious purposes
2) worthy of respect or dedication

http://www.google.nl/search?q=define%3A+sacred&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

i think the "in sickness and in health, till death do us part" sums up what marriage means........
it means that by marrying you say that you want to spend the rest of your life together...... divorce is only an option if something major happens, your partner cheating on you or something..... getting married,and finding out you dont really love eachother after a couple of years: you shouldnt have gotten married in the first place

i think that (although we blame everyone else) Christians are a major source of bad marriages, especially in countries like the USA..... i know alot of Christian couples that got married very early cause that "felt right" (read: were horny as **** and couldnt wait any longer)........ this generally doesnt lead to good marriages........

[clocker]

Yes, yes...and the rest of the post?
Well, what of it?

Sorry to stray just for one more post, but as you note that words change and/or take on new/additional meaning(s) over time, surely you must see the difficulties arising therefrom between people over even normal conversation, depending on which of these myriad meanings are subscribed to by each the utterer and the listener?

Logic militates against this practice, I assure you, but I'm am also aware of it's favor and utility with those who practice nuance.
Please name one language (Esperanto does not count) in which words have singular/discrete meanings, separate and above the context in which they are used.

From Webster's:
1 a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods> b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>
2 a : worthy of religious veneration : HOLY b : entitled to reverence and respect
3 : of or relating to religion : not secular or profane <sacred music>
4 archaic : ACCURSED
5 a : UNASSAILABLE, INVIOLABLE b : highly valued and important <a sacred responsibility>
- sa·cred·ly adverb
- sa·cred·ness noun

Even strictly adhering to Webster's it's easy to imagine two different conversations regarding the "sanctity of marriage"- one of which could be between two athiests.
Would such an exchange confuse you unduly, or would you use your intuition and senses to discern the underlying meaning intended by the utterer?
I suspect the latter, good sir...you seem as capable of nuance as any ( the use of "therefrom" nonwithstanding).......

[ruthie]

The point is this.

I am married in the eyes of God until death do us part. It's a one off deal and there's no getting out. Even if we choose no longer to live together, we are married until one of us dies.

I am also married in the eyes of the law. However if at some stage one or both of us decides to terminate this contract then we can do so. Then re-marry as often as we want.

This is why the former is sacred and the latter is not. The religious oath is a sacred and unbreakable one. Any "oath" which is taken in a civil ceremony is breakable, it is therefore not sacred.

I really have no problem with this state of affairs. If people are content to marry in a civil ceremony in order to secure pension rights etc then so be it. I think everyone should have the same rights anyway. However it does go to illustrate that they do not take it as being sacred.
No surprise here...I strongly disagree. It is presumptuous of you to assume that couples that don't see themselves married "in the eyes of God" do not take their marraige as sacred. (and, does god have eyes?) LOL.
You use the word sacred in religious context, yet if you look up religion, you will find many definitions...many of which include this as part of the definition " 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny."
For some people, belief in "supernatural" anything is sacralige. That's humorous in itself.
It is judgemental to assume that there is no feeling or intention of the sacred in vows and commitments people make between each other...they just might not follow your proscribed religion, and there are plenty of religions that view "god" as something different then you do. I will NOT have a religious ceremony preformed by priest or rabbi..to me, that would be sacrolige...I am religious in my own beliefs, however they differ from yours...it's all in interpretation.
Your comment could be construed as an attempt to invalidate what many hold "sacred" and dear...just differently from your own personal interpretation.

[Rat Faced]

Everyone is different, and you cannot compel your personal ethics on others.

To me marriage is a label, pure and simple.

I recognise its necessity in providing security to the spouse and siblings involved. I approve of the security, however resent having to have a piece of paper that says the State recognises something that myself and partner would already know, or else lose financial security from the state for the people I love.

In times past, we had handfasting... most of the poor didnt get married, that was reserved for the gentry.

Marriage for commoners is a fairly recent thing in Britain.

[ruthie]

Yup, RF..it's too bad one has to have a "marraige" to be able to have legal rights. Personally, I'd be just fine with a handfasting, however, that does not protect us when it comes to Social Security, pensions, etc.

[leezathehoneybird]

The point is this.

I am married in the eyes of God until death do us part. It's a one off deal and there's no getting out. Even if we choose no longer to live together, we are married until one of us dies.

I am also married in the eyes of the law. However if at some stage one or both of us decides to terminate this contract then we can do so. Then re-marry as often as we want.

This is why the former is sacred and the latter is not. The religious oath is a sacred and unbreakable one. Any "oath" which is taken in a civil ceremony is breakable, it is therefore not sacred.

I agree. I married in a church dispite not being religious (I did it because my parents believe in God). I have since divorced my husband on grounds of 'adultery with a named person'. My marriage is now disolved in the eyes of the law but when I made those vows infront of my partner, my friends & family and the God of my parents I meant them. Because of this I will not marry again, I made my vow and to make the same vow to a different person...no matter how much I love them...would (in my eyes) belittle my original vow.

But damn I'd love to wear a beatiful weading gown again :(

[ruthie]

Easy one, JP...yes, I want the rights that come with marraige, however I would not be willing to marry if I didn't feel about my partner how I do...I am perfectly able to make that commitment between us..if I did not love him the way I do, if I did not feel that love is sacred, no rights or benefits would move me to marry.
You also assume that people that get married by a judge, a non-denominational person, etc. are more willing to break their vows. Under God, well, let's examine all the molesters the church has produced...one of them might have conducted your wedding, so that's out the window.
Good thing you aren't in charge around here. ROFL

[Rat Faced]

The mere fact that people are willing to break their "oaths" from a civil ceremony means that they do not consider them to be sacred. It is they who make that decision, not I.

You will find in my post that I referred to "I" and the religious oath which I took. Whatever other religions believe or not has nothing to do with it. I explain why the religious aspect of my marriage is sacred to me, whilst the secular part is little more than a contract. This is what informs my opinion.

Allied to comments like your own, that you are marrying for the rights which come with it. (Which I agree you shoud have anyway). How can that possibly be considered sacred. Pragmatic, indeed but not sacred.

Just as many people that get married in Church break their vows as those that are married in a civil ceremony.

I was married in the Church of Latter Day Saints as an example, due to my ex's beliefs.. a stricter "Church" would be hard to find. It was the "religious" half of the partnership that broke their vows..

Not laying any blame, any partnership is 50:50 ... however, I cant see anything special about a "Religious" ceremony over the civil.

[manker]

I think the point here is that with regard to the sacredness or sanctity of marriage, the meaning of the word when taken into context of a marriage is religeous. For these purposes sacred is not a synonym for special or precious.

If you consider your marriage vows to be sacred, even though you're not religeous then I believe you're wrong. Yes you can hold them dear and never violate them but they aren't sacred vows.

However, just because you subscribe to a different religeon to the mainstream and you have a different set of ceremonial vows, that doesn't mean your vows aren't sacred. As I said tho' the vows in a marriage between two atheists isn't sacred IMO.

Basically I'm agreeing with JP in so much as the vows in a religeous ceremony are sacred but the vows in a civil ceremony are not. However, I cannot agree that the civil vows are more likely to be broken than the religeous ones. That depends on the character of the people involved.

I can also see Ruthie's point that she considers her potential vows to be sacred because of her beliefs (I'm taking belief to mean religeon here) - that's fair enough. I'm less convinced as to the validity of the molester statement, it was totally irrelevant and akin to someone casually slipping a pedophile comment into a discussion about gay rights. Does that strike a chord, Ruthie.

[vidcc]

Sacred isn't purely a religious term no matter how those that have religion wish it were because that was the roots of the word in the beginning, just a "gay" doesn't just mean happy anymore.

The arguements over the usage of a word that some wish to be exclusive have hijacked the point of the thread. So i shall make it clear that it is about taking marriage seriously (sacred to what one thinks a marriage is......and that is the correct usage)

Is getting married because of an unexpected pregnancy taking MARRIAGE seriously or is it demeaning the marriage if that's the only reason it was entered into?
that is just one example...someone said about getting married early because they couldn't wait any longer to have sex.



What are the reasons YOU consider trivialise marriage

[manker]

Vid,

You asked 'what is the sanctity of marriage.' The posts relating to the sacredness (or not) of marriage vows appertain to that. It is not off-topic. If you believe that this has detracted from the issue you wished to discuss then you should have constructed the original post to reflect this.

Also to assert that only religeous folk wish (or believe) that sacredness relates to religion in the context of marriage is nonsense. It's pure linguistics.

Edit: I'm not religeous, btw.

[vidcc]

manker


the original post talked about the whole concept of taking marriage lightly and it has turned into nothing but a debate about the use of a word to describe the vows...not the marriage...that is why i made a post to try to get away from that.

We have a big thing here (the USA) about family values etc..... well are those values served by encouraging flippent reasons to marry?.... this is another reason for the thread. it appears some haven't taken up that reason so i am clearing it up.

I have said before that if anyone misunderstands my posts i will glady rephrase for them.that is what i have done

What is the sanctity of marriage?

On a thread in the lounge the subject was rasied because of a pregnancy out of wedlock.

But is that a reason for marriage?

you see there was more than just the question of what is the sanctity of marriage.

[vidcc]

But a civil marriage can be sacred to the non believer if they take that marriage as being so. As i said it doesn't have to be religious to be sacred to the party concerned.

As an Athiest i could argue that if it can only be a sacred vow if made to God then that vow is meaningless as God doesn't exist and therefore the term sacred used in such a way is meaningless.

But yet again i would like to point out that the thread is about the seriousness with which people view marriage and reasons for marriage, not about vows

[Rat Faced]

Sacred:

Definition:
[adj] (often followed by `to') devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person; "a fund sacred to charity"; "a morning hour sacred to study"; "a private office sacred to the President"
[adj] made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use; "a consecrated chursh"; "the sacred mosque"; "sacred elephants"; "sacred bread and wine"; "sanctified wine"
[adj] worthy of religious veneration; "the sacred name of Jesus"; "Jerusalem's hallowed soil"
[adj] concerned with religion or religious purposes; "sacred texts"; "sacred rites"; "sacred music"
[adj] worthy of respect or dedication; "saw motherhood as woman's sacred calling"


Sacred is not a purely religious word, and is quite capable of being used to describe a Marriage without any religious overtones...

To me, Marriage is Sacred... however following the above definition, so is any relationship.

[Rat Faced]

It takes 2 to Tango...

If one wants a divorce, then it doesnt matter how sacred the other holds their vows.. they will get divorced.

[manker]

Sacred:

Definition:
[adj] (often followed by `to') devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person; "a fund sacred to charity"; "a morning hour sacred to study"; "a private office sacred to the President"
[adj] made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use; "a consecrated chursh"; "the sacred mosque"; "sacred elephants"; "sacred bread and wine"; "sanctified wine"
[adj] worthy of religious veneration; "the sacred name of Jesus"; "Jerusalem's hallowed soil"
[adj] concerned with religion or religious purposes; "sacred texts"; "sacred rites"; "sacred music"
[adj] worthy of respect or dedication; "saw motherhood as woman's sacred calling"


Sacred is not a purely religious word, and is quite capable of being used to describe a Marriage without any religious overtones...

To me, Marriage is Sacred... however following the above definition, so is any relationship.
I agree that sacred is not a purely religeous word, if you read my posts you'll see that I said it was so only in this marital context. As you've rightly pointed out, sacred is "devoted exclusively" and "worthy of respect or dedication".

This cannot be the case if the vows are deemed by the partakers of the vows to be breakable. They are not devoted exclusively to the vows as they do not preclude the possiblity of a forsaking them.

Since religeous folk, such as JP, preclude ever not being bound by these vows, he considers them sacred. Since (for example, my Mam and Dad) acknowledge that should they divorce then they will be free of the obligations of the vows they took, then to them the vows are not sacred.

That is the distinction. That's why - taking any definition of sacred - I'm saying that a sacred marriage vow has to be a religeous one.

[j2k4]

Well, what of it?

Please name one language...in which words have singular/discrete meanings, separate and above the context in which they are used.


You miss my point, which is:

That many people misuse words is not in dispute; that they, when called on the fact, refuse to retract, deny, reword, or re-define their statements and their intended meaning is, in the main, when this definitional fluidity arises, as an issue.

I do not dispute many words have multiple meanings, but to take this obvious fact to illogical and ridiculous extremes is foolish, and, dare I say it, even dangerous.

To furnish new definitions willy-nilly is folly. :D

Just because a fool drives his car into the swimming pool to see if it will float does not mean that to do so, ipso facto, becomes an accepted optional activity for motorists, does it?

[Biggles]

I do not feel particularly well qualified to add much to this. I married some 24 years ago but the good Mrs Biggles and I have lived our own lives for over 8 years - most of them much, much more amicably than the last couple we were together.

We have never bothered to divorce as it didn't seem important. Neither wished to go and find a prospective new marriage partner and to date neither of us has bumped into anyone to make the hassle worthwhile.

It is has also been nice for the kids to feel free to come and go between our two houses (which are within easy walking distance) in this amicable atmosphere.

Marriage for life may have been a more practical propisition in the days when it was rare for both parties to see past 40. I suspect the rise in divorce rates and the rise in life expectancy have more than a casual relationship. :)

For those who have a life long soul partner - good on you! I think most of us would admit to a little envy there.

[vidcc]

i am sure that just as with those that marry in church people that marry in a non religious manner mean the vows at the time they say it, the fact that they change their minds at a later date doesn't mean they took them with any less seriousness.
I had a civil wedding, not because i think it allows me to change my mind later, but because i don't believe in God. This doesn't mean i take my marriage to be anything less than sacred to me.
I married my wife because of the whole total love loyalty package, not for civil benefits.

@j2


That many people misuse words is not in dispute; that they, when called on the fact, refuse to retract, deny, reword, or re-define their statements and their intended meaning is, in the main, when this definitional fluidity arises, as an issue.


the words (in this case at least) are not being misused, no matter how much you dislike the usage.
The definition has been proven and even re-worded so that those that didn't know the usage could understand



I refuse to reduce my vocablary.....the idea is to increase it.

[hobbes]

I agree that only a religious vow would be likely to have such status, however it does not then logically follow that all religious vows do.

I kind of get what you and Manker are describing.

You are saying that one persons vow to another, although pure at the time of commitment, may be rather logically broken if the involved persons don't get along at some time in the future.

Since there is no higher commitment than themselves, they have the authority to nullify the union.

To a religious person, the "sanctity" lies in ones commitment to GOD and NOT the person you are marrying. The married couple may not get along, and both may want to leave, but both are honoring their commitment to GOD, not to each other.

That is what makes his "sanctity" a little different than a "person to person" sanctity. Two people that don't like each other should stay together for what purpose? They have no higher authority to let down.



What does confuse me a bit about religious sanctity is this line:


I am married in the eyes of God until death do us part. It's a one off deal and there's no getting out. Even if we choose no longer to live together, we are married until one of us dies.

This assumes that marriage is a passive process, like a stamp on a passport. Once activated it is a "go". Once you get on the ride(marry), you roll down the hill until you die. But to me, marriage is about vows that need to be reproven EVERY DAY. How can one have and hold, love and cherish, when they are living apart. If you live apart, you have violated your vows, NOT to the STATE, but to GOD. You told God that you would love and cherish, but you are not. This doesn't even have to be physical separation, it could be two individuals sharing the same house, but their hearts no longer care for the other.

So if you have violated your promise to God, what is the point of remaining married by the STATE? It seems to be some bizarre martyrdom.

If you and the wife live apart, and you encounter someone new, are you to shun her and spend your final days in solitude. Obviously you must, if you have made your pledge before God.

My point is that NOT getting a divorce from the STATE is NOT the same as staying married in the eyes of GOD. Staying married in the eyes of God is fullfilling your marital vows EVERY day.

I find it ironic that people will stay married in the eyes of the courts, when the only promise of any value, which was to God, has been broken. Strange thinking, that.

[hobbes]

@Vidcc- Yes, I know that the above is off topic. You wanted to know if people should be taking marriage more seriously. Marriage should represent the "acme" of human commitment. When people say, "We are married", it barely means more than dating anymore. It doesn't strike people with the same sense of commitment it once did. The "sanctity" of marriage has been tarnished.

But then again, there are a lot less people staying together in misery because of societal or other external pressures.

Problem with marriage is that the people entering into it are usually not qualified. They don't really understand what makes for a successful long term relationship. So many fresh faced young kids, standing at the altar, meaning every word, but no having a clue what they are really signing up for.

A good marriage comes from a bit of luck and a bit of experience.

Maybe the first marriage should be called "trial marriage" which can be upgraded in 5 years to a full marriage. That way, when people say they are fully married, the reponse will be "wow, that's great!" not "again"?

[100%]

You spoke of gun shot weddings
and you speak of definitions

heres one that suits my case.....
Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

bastard
adj 1: the illegitimate offspring of unmarried parents - born out of wedlock; "the dominions of both rulers passed
away to their spurious or doubtful offspring"-
E.A.Freeman [syn: bastardly, misbegot, misbegotten,
spurious]

very nice, nice indeed
anyway i definetly want to marry her but not because of a child and definetly not now. One thing at a time (but not always)

[vidcc]

@ hobbes

actually you didn't stray from the topic, you mentioned the religious side re. the "definition" however also went into the marriage itself..which is what i am after....something missing in the fracas about a definition of a word.
i don't remember if you were involved in the thread where manny said that his church encouraged the father to marry the woman he impregnated,(the father, not manny) instead of having an abortion... well to me that is against the whole "sacredness" (religious or otherwise) of what marriage is supposed to be. If one is not living the marriage as the vows intended then isn't the sacredness being abused even though the couple are not divorced?.
you picked up on that.

Your idea of a "trial" made me smile, however it made me think more of a different approach in a more serious way.

Perhaps those that push for family values should spend more time making sure that those they are pushing are aware of what they are getting into and try to discourage frivilous marriages instead of rushing them out of a sense of tradition, be it through shotgun weddings or even through weddings for (ahem) eyesight reasons.
If they did this there may be a return to marriage as a truely "sacred" institution

[vidcc]

You spoke of gun shot weddings
and you speak of definitions

heres one that suits my case.....
Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

bastard
adj 1: the illegitimate offspring of unmarried parents - born out of wedlock; "the dominions of both rulers passed
away to their spurious or doubtful offspring"-
E.A.Freeman [syn: bastardly, misbegot, misbegotten,
spurious]

very nice, nice indeed
anyway i definetly want to marry her but not because of a child and definetly not now. One thing at a time (but not always)
An outdated word for outdated times Zed, and anyone that would use such a term in any sort of judgemental way is frankly not worthy of respect in their views.

I am so glad you wish to marry and appear to do so for the right reasons.( from the little i know).

I am an athiest so have no religious viewpoint for marriage however as an institution i believe in it firmly, which is why i took the time to start a thread about it. I can't make a vow to "god" as he doesn't exist, but i can make a vow to the woman i love...... and i don't care what any person believes about it needing to be religious to be so but to me THAT VOW AND THE WHOLE LIFE I LIVE WITH HER is sacred

[vidcc]

As if to illustrate a point.
???

[j2k4]

i don't remember if you were involved in the thread where manny said that his church encouraged the father to marry the woman he impregnated,(the father, not manny) instead of having an abortion... well to me that is against the whole "sacredness" (religious or otherwise) of what marriage is supposed to be. If one is not living the marriage as the vows intended then isn't the sacredness being abused even though the couple are not divorced?.
Perhaps those that push for family values should spend more time making sure that those they are pushing are aware of what they are getting into and try to discourage frivilous marriages instead of rushing them out of a sense of tradition, be it through shotgun weddings or even through weddings for (ahem) eyesight reasons.
If they did this there may be a return to marriage as a truely "sacred" institution

I am well aware that you will think I have missed your point; let me assure you that I have not.

I do not buy the idea of marriage for the wrong reason, shotgun or otherwise, and I believe, all religious aspects aside, that anyone at all can judge for him- or herself the folly of advocating the practice or assenting to such an arrangement.

That, too, aside, I also believe (as one of those who "push for family values") that while we should take a look at the efficacy of the "trivial marriage", it would also be a fine idea to examine the cause and effect of what you might call a "trivial pregnancy"?

I don't mean to pick nits, but misguided people have been known to get married over such things.

To pretend that pregnancies just "happen" demonstrates a distinct lack of the same consideration for one's well-being (as well as certain others) that is required to determine whether the prospective marriage would be a good or bad thing.

Why exercise such stringent judgement in one case but not the other?

How can you bemoan the "shotgun" wedding without considering relevant causal circumstances?

I really hate to intrude on your thread with tough questions, but you know how I am. ;)

[vidcc]

J2 i haven't said you missed the point of the thread, i was waiting for you to join it.


I really hate to intrude on your thread with tough questions, but you know how I am.

what's tough about the questions?


Not sure why you think that i am lightening "accidental pregnancy"...... in this day and age contraception is widely available and many, but not all, pregnancies can be avoided. Sometimes even with contraception accidents happen.

I know the arguement of abstinance being the only 100% protection however again i think that goes against what is sacred in marriage. The absinance approach being a "moral" theory..... i don't think that having sex if one is an adult is immoral...even outside wedlock. This does of course mean that if one does partake then one has to accept responsibility for any possible outcome.

This is where you and I part company.

I am pro choice even though i would never make that choice myself. (i would like to steer clear of the abortion debate please as this thread has already been hijacked once) But then even married people have abortions.
I would not consider it a "family value" to push 2 people together that had a one night stand that resulted in a baby. To me this is turning marriage into a punishment instead of a commitment.

If they both decide to have said child and both wish to be involved as parents they can choose to do so without being married.

But then there is also the point that to me a "marriage" is the life and not the ceromony that makes it official.

i know of many people that live together out of wedlock and their relationships are shining examples of what marriage should be.
They endure the judgemental "well they can just walk away" comments from married couples that IMO don't have as good a "marriage" even with the paperwork.

[vidcc]

When was this thread hijacked.

The first question asked (after the gay marriage disclaimer) was "What is the sanctity of marriage? "

The discussions here have been in relation to that subject, so how was it hijacked.already covered that, reworded, and cleared it up....next question?

[vidcc]

What's that supposed to mean. People were on topic throughout. The fact that you may have subsequently made a post, which said that they were not talking about what you had originally intended is irrelevant.

There was no spam to speak of and people were having a sensible discussion. So once again, when was it hijacked. Perhaps an answer this time.

If you don't like the answer that's your problem. The thread was cleared up..it is about the sanctity of the "Marriage" not the meaning of the term, it is about the way marriage is conducted, not the vow to god...yet that continued to be the debate even after it was cleared up.

As i said before, if anyone misses the point i will galdly clear up any misunderstanding...... if they then decide that they haven't missed the point I made and decide to follow the point they think i made then they are hijacking and going off direction.

look back and read the original post...there was more than just one line, it was devoted to making the point about what is breaking the meaning of what marriage is supposed to be in its "sacredness" (i have cleared that element up)

Hobbes picked up on it very clearly



if you wish to join that debate i welcome your views

[Rat Faced]

You have to have something like the Royal Perogative or the Executive Order, otherwise a country cannot react quickly enough to some events.

Its the misuse of these powers that i object to.

ie: The concentration of too much power in one persons/parties hands.

The Head of State should be a Titular Position, with no real power other than being able to force an election and react to events threatening the nation...

Governing should be left to the Prime Minister and Parliament.. accountability, although much slower. To give the PM the powers of the Head of State too, which he currently employs.. means that he can bypass Parliament when he feels like it. Just like GW does in Washington with his Executive Orders.

Your way, is basically electing an Absolute Leader for a period of time... I dont like Absolutes.

[vidcc]

Who is it you think you are exactly. People discuss things the way they wish to, not the way you direct them to. As long as it is not spam, or offensive then it is not a problem. The fact that you started the thread is irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of where it naturally progresses to.

there is a difference between natural progression and not discussing the original point at all.

If you wish to further hijack and argue more please start your own thread

[vidcc]

You have to have something like the Royal Perogative or the Executive Order, otherwise a country cannot react quickly enough to some events.

Its the misuse of these powers that i object to.

ie: The concentration of too much power in one persons/parties hands.

The Head of State should be a Titular Position, with no real power other than being able to force an election and react to events threatening the nation...

Governing should be left to the Prime Minister and Parliament.. accountability, although much slower. To give the PM the powers of the Head of State too, which he currently employs.. means that he can bypass Parliament when he feels like it. Just like GW does in Washington with his Executive Orders.

Your way, is basically electing an Absolute Leader for a period of time... I dont like Absolutes.
stop it rat :lol:

[j2k4]

So then, the upshot of all of this is that the institution of marriage, with all of it's accoutrements, religious and/or otherwise, has no righteous or tangible value to any other than religious types, and no one apart from religious types could/would/should have any objection whatsoever if the union and all rights thereto were extended to any and all, so long as their reasons for seeking such a union are of a strictly secular nature? :huh:

Ought to be interesting when the shepherd/sheep lobby, et. al., step to the plate... :whistling

[vidcc]

So then, the upshot of all of this is that the institution of marriage, with all of it's accoutrements, religious and/or otherwise, has no righteous or tangible value to any other than religious types, and no one apart from religious types could/would/should have any objection whatsoever if the union and all rights thereto were extended to any and all, so long as their reasons for seeking such a union are of a strictly secular nature? :huh:

Ought to be interesting when the shepherd/sheep lobby, et. al., step to the plate... :whistling


No.... i am not religious and i am argueing that marriage is being demoted by those that take it frivilously. I have however probably hit a nerve because i made a point of saying that some (not all) people of faith are just as responsible for this as those with no faith.

As to the objection bit to it being extended to all, who said only religious "types" could have an objection?.

That said i think it should be extended to all..... as long as it is taken with the seriousness it is supposed to have

[Rat Faced]

stop it rat :lol:

I have no idea how that post appeared in this thread
:blink:

[j2k4]

No.... i am not religious and i am argueing that marriage is being demoted by those that take it frivilously. I have however probably hit a nerve because i made a point of saying that some (not all) people of faith are just as responsible for this as those with no faith.

As to the objection bit to it being extended to all, who said only religious "types" could have an objection?.

That said i think it should be extended to all..... as long as it is taken with the seriousness it is supposed to have

You have contended (in your own roundabout way) that the only people who would object to sharing the term marriage do so on religious grounds, and whose opinions on the matter are therefore of no account.

Right?

[hobbes]

You have contended (in your own roundabout way) that the only people who would object to sharing the term marriage do so on religious grounds, and whose opinions on the matter are therefore of no account.

Right?


The thing is that same sex couples may make the exact same pledge to God that you do, it just may be that they define their God differently.

It is the belief in God that is important, not which God.

There are many heterosexual couples who are "married" but have no faith in God, haven't heard much of a ruckus about insisting they use another term. Only since this whole gay thing came up that this has been an issue.

But I'm not one who cares about the word. Call it garraige, fairyage, homosexualarige, it is the violation of personal rights that I am concerned with.

[vidcc]

You have contended (in your own roundabout way) that the only people who would object to sharing the term marriage do so on religious grounds, and whose opinions on the matter are therefore of no account.

Right?


wrong.

I have pointed out that many do only because of their religious beliefs but have not said once that because it is soley because of religious beliefs that it is of no account, i just disagree that they have a monopoly on the word marriage.
Where i object isn't because they wish to keep the word marriage, rather they wish to deny the rights that go along with it.

[j2k4]

wrong.

I have pointed out that many do only because of their religious beliefs but have not said once that because it is soley because of religious beliefs that it is of no account, i just disagree that they have a monopoly on the word marriage.
Where i object isn't because they wish to keep the word marriage, rather they wish to deny the rights that go along with it.

And I, your own personal rock-ribbed conservative, have said that I myself wouldn't care if, say, a civil union included all rights normally included in heterosexual marriage, as long as, if it is not a heterosexual union, it is not referred to as a marriage.

If those partaking in "civil unions" wish some sort of religious sanctification to be conferred upon the ceremony, that is a fight for them, to be fought another day; mayhaps they'd find it a desirable option to try to start another religion or something.

May I take it you would agree with the scenario I have just laid out, vid?

[manker]

And I, your own personal rock-ribbed conservative, have said that I myself wouldn't care if, say, a civil union included all rights normally included in heterosexual marriage, as long as, if it is not a heterosexual union, it is not referred to as a marriage.

If those partaking in "civil unions" wish some sort of religious sanctification to be conferred upon the ceremony, that is a fight for them, to be fought another day; mayhaps they'd find it a desirable option to try to start another religion or something.

May I take it you would agree with the scenario I have just laid out, vid?I'm not sure what vid would think but I think it's nonsense to take a stand declaring that you don't mind homosexuals getting married so long as they never utter the word marriage when relating to their state of union. Would you also like heterosexual folk to also have a monopoly on the word wedding or perhaps referring to a young lad in the ceremony as a page boy is also a bone of contention.

Please, live and let live. What possible difference does it make.

[sArA]

One definition of to marry is 'to combine or blend agreeably' Therefore, imo to marry is precisely that, and is not dependant on the sex or even nature of the individual parts, but a joining together.

[vidcc]

J2

Please put your ego back in the box.... :rolleyes: .... then point to where i said "all" conservatives in ANY post when i have argued the rights for homosexuals to marry/civil union ....if i mean you specifically i will use your name or words such as "you" :P

It has been noted because you made the point of actually letting us know what your view is (sometimes we never find out :P )...we understand and accept your view but don't agree with it as I at least don't believe anyone has the ownership of the word.
Make it a civil union by all means as long as it carries the same rights countrywide...no state excluded....however you will not be able to stop people from calling it marriage. couples are going to say "we are married"...not "we are civil unioned". But then what would you call it if a church decides it will accept gay "unions"?

@ manker

I won't say that J2s stance is "nonsense" even if i disagree and and can say why (as you did) i say this not to argue with you but because i think just because someone disagrees with me that doesn't mean they have a less valid viewpoint....there is too much of that already :)

@ sara

;) not wishing to open that can of worms..... :lol: :lol:

[manker]

@ manker

I won't say that J2s stance is "nonsense" even if i disagree and and can say why (as you did) i say this not to argue with you but because i think just because someone disagrees with me that doesn't mean they have a less valid viewpoint....there is too much of that already :) I think lots of people have less valid viewpoints than my own. Some of them, in my opinion, are nonsensical whereas my own are not. That's not to say I'd deny them the right to their own viewpoint - merely that I think my own is better.

I duno, does that make me sound like an arse :P

Of course I meant no detriment to J2, fine chap that he is. I expressed that I believed his viewpoint to be lacking in logic, or sense - hence nonsense.

[j2k4]

J2

Please put your ego back in the box.... :rolleyes: .... then point to where i said "all" conservatives in ANY post when i have argued the rights for homosexuals to marry/civil union ....if i mean you specifically i will use your name or words such as "you" :P


I didn't say you said "all"; I alluded to the fact you defined (everywhere I have ascertained), in every instance you mentioned, that those who were stuck on the point of just who should be allowed to appropriate the term, were doing so based on a religious objection.

You never acknowledged one who so objected could be doing so for any reason other than religion.

If you ever specified me, I do not remember it.

In my last post, I began by referring (rather clearly, I thought) to myself, so your last makes no sense.

Worry not, though-it isn't the first time for that. ;)

[vidcc]

You never acknowledged one who so objected could be doing so for any reason other than religion.


This is because i have not come across anyone that objected to the use of the word other than due to religious beliefs.

I don't doubt that there are people that fit this criteria and have not once said that they don't exist.

I will of course refrain from starting a thread complaining that because i haven't mentioned those of non religious objections that i am being unfairly judged as not realising they exist :P

[hobbes]

Just making it a round 80, just to be tidy.

[vidcc]

Just making it a round 80, just to be tidy.


Huh?.....

it was a "round 80"...you made it 81 :unsure:

[j2k4]

I will of course refrain from starting a thread complaining that because i haven't mentioned those of non religious objections that i am being unfairly judged as not realising they exist :P

Of course.

A round 83, then. :D

[hobbes]

Huh?.....

it was a "round 80"...you made it 81 :unsure:

Even with J2's addition and this one, my page says 83, so it was 80 for me. Wonder if that has to do with the fact you started the thread. :blink:

[vidcc]

Even with J2's addition and this one, my page says 83, so it was 80 for me. Wonder if that has to do with the fact you started the thread. :blink:


well that's wierd, surely it would include all posts...i should find one you started and put the number in see if you see it one more...... just wish i could raise enough interest to do it :lol: