Marriage and it's supposed sanctity

[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...

[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...S:ohmy:fficial

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