Marriage and it's supposed sanctity

[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.

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.