marriage vs. partnership

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by frogus
if we don't look at it in a logical way we cannot hope to find the undeniable truth....anyway that doesn't really matter...and that's jsut what I think...

The ramifications of someone leaving a relationship and then starting a new one are known by us all I think. Come on, if having more than one relationship in your lifetime was a really big deal then I think we would be discussing it, but it isn't. Everybody does it. I think it is accepted by everyone that staying in a marriage with no love (or even hatred) is about as bad a thing as one can do, while leaving a bad relationship can cause pain, but not much.
My point is, if a relationship is of the right type, it will stay commited and neither person will sleep around etc. if it is not of this type then it is just not if this type. It is not a commied relationship, and institutions which force it into prolonged existance are agents for bad, not good.

Your opinion of a relationship filled with love is identical to mine, yet not followed up with realistic views.

If a relationship is of the right type and in a perfect world, then they will stay committed to each other and not sleep around. However, this is not a perfect world. People fall into temptation and sin against one another. It is possible to forgive the one you love for sinning against you, usually; but it can still have huge rammifications within a relationship.

It may not do so as much as it should, but marriage does provide a structure to help us fight against temptation.

And no, I am not going Biblical with that. I'm just using the most applicable words for what I'm saying.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by fable


And the question arises, in any case: assuming you believe in a god, goddess or gods who endorse marriage wholeheartedly, where does it state that such a condition must be celebrated by a ceremony of a particular organized religion? Is a given church, temple, ashram, or what-have-you, any more sanctified than the space two people can choose for themselves, as they announce their vows to the universe?

From my view, though not necessarily from the views of others, it does not matter where you choose to get married at, other than the use of "common sense." In other words, how smart is it to get married in the middle of a bomb testing site?

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by EMINEM


It's certainly reasonable to think that they are happy BECAUSE they are married, since marriage (a commitment) lasts longer than happiness (a feeling).

Excuse me, EMINEM, but I have to agree with fable on this one. My parents reason for being happy is not that they're married, but that they're together. Happiness, joy, anger, sadness—these are all a part of married life, but marriage is not the sole cause of them. An engaged couple might be happy that they are getting married, but it is not the marriage that makes them happy, but the fact that they love each other so much and are making the commitment to be with each other until death. To expect marriage to be a source of happiness can actually doom the marriage from the beginning because the marriage itself is not the source of happiness, but rather the love, commitment, trust, and Being with each other is the source of the happiness.

And to those who might consider twisting my words or taking them out of context, this has nothing to do with whether or not one should marry. ¬_¬ *pokes the word twisters with a stick* Got that?

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by EMINEM


I'm 22. My birthday is is two weeks! (April 6).

Happiness doesn't last. Are you really going to dispute this? If your marriage is based on happiness alone, then your marriage won't last. It must therefore be founded on something stonger and with more staying power than emotion, and I believe that that foundation is one of commitment.

I think perhaps there is a bit of overlapping definition here. "Happiness is temporary, but joy is everlasting." However, I'm seeing happiness used seemingly for both. While they are similar, they are not identical. Money can buy happiness, but as said, that's temporary. Money can't by joy, which is everlasting. A couple who is truly in love can find joy, whereas a couple that is not truly in love can, at best, only find some temporary happiness.

A true marriage of souls does not come from a ceremony, and as I have said before, marriage laws and such would not be needed in a perfect world. But this isn't a perfect world and humans need guidelines. If you look in the Bible, for example, the laws in the old testament were given to the Jews as guidelines that they had to follow because they were such a "stiff-necked" people.

I'm now going to refer to a certain thing that applies to Christians because it parallels with the secular world. There are many Christians who take the "we are not under the law" part as meaning that to obey the law is to try to "work" for your salvation and that we are not to be restrained by the law(yet they still follow the laws of the country they're in). They specifically use this in saying that they don't need to worry 'bout the ten commandments and such. Well, this is true to some extent, we do not need to work for our salvation and we are not bound by the law. However, the law is given to us as a guideline for "right living."

Similarly, the law is given to us by the government as a guideline of how to live our lives in a good and productive way. Admittedly, these laws are not always good for that purpose, but that does not change the fact that the original intent of law is to provide guidelines. As an imperfect world full of people who do bad things(not necessarily on purpose), it is necessary for guidelines to be laid down. Partnerships are not excluded from this, thus there is law about Marriage, which is a partnership. The guidelines of marriage are needed because of our sinful nature.

[frogus]

It's certainly reasonable to think that they are happy BECAUSE they are married, since marriage (a commitment) lasts longer than happiness (a feeling).

You are contradicting yourself Eminem..you said earlier that it was quite possible to get married (the vegas example?) without being in love, just to get at your parents etc, in which case the marriage will be doomed from the start. To say that getting married makes one happy is ridiculous and I don't think you believe it yourself. I don't think that you can really claim that a depressed bloke could go out and force a woman to marry him and then wake up the next morning happy.

Why do you try to twist my words? You're doing a lousy job of it.

SS you cannot just go around accusing everyone who tries to point out contradictions in your arguments of 'twisting your words'. It may well be the case that your words were twisted already, and I am just trying to show you how. You should keep from telling people that what they are doing is lousy aswell. In a debate the aim is not to embarass the other person into abandoning his convictions by telling him he is lousy, but to show him why his convictions are lousy, and if you cannot, allow him to show you.

If a relationship is of the right type and in a perfect world, then they will stay committed to each other and not sleep around. However, this is not a perfect world. People fall into temptation and sin against one another. It is possible to forgive the one you love for sinning against you, usually; but it can still have huge rammifications within a relationship.

We can just explain away anything and dismiss any argument by resorting to jargon if we want, but saying 'this is not a perfect world' is not going to get us anywhere.
Anyway, do you think that falling into temptation is a different thing fom sinning deliberately, and if so, could you tell me what happens to make someone sin deliberately (ie what are their motives) and also what happens when someone 'falls into temptation'? In each case, does the sinner know that what he is doing is wrong? etc...

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by frogus
SS you cannot just go around accusing everyone who tries to point out contradictions in your arguments of 'twisting your words'. It may well be the case that your words were twisted already, and I am just trying to show you how. You should keep from telling people that what they are doing is lousy aswell. In a debate the aim is not to embarass the other person into abandoning his convictions by telling him he is lousy, but to show him why his convictions are lousy, and if you cannot, allow him to show you.

You have been twisting my words and creating contradictions that are not there by saying that I am saying something that I am not saying. Whether this is intentional or not, I do not know; but I made the comment because I would prefer that you actually answer questions I have asked rather than try to say that I'm saying something I am not saying.

We can just explain away anything and dismiss any argument by resorting to jargon if we want, but saying 'this is not a perfect world' is not going to get us anywhere.
Anyway, do you think that falling into temptation is a different thing fom sinning deliberately, and if so, could you tell me what happens to make someone sin deliberately (ie what are their motives) and also what happens when someone 'falls into temptation'? In each case, does the sinner know that what he is doing is wrong? etc...

I am not "resorting to jargon." I use the words within my vocabulary that best apply to the comments I am making. "Falling into tempation" is meaning that we get tempted and succumb to temptation. An example would be a "beautiful" girl acting in a seductive way and so you go and sleep with her, even though you're married. It is not necessarily that extreme or black&white, but that is an example. An example of deliberate sin would be more along the lines of hiring a prostitute to sleep with you, especially if you're married.

What I am saying is that if there was no evil, no wrongdoing, and no other generally bad things that occured in the world, then we would not need guidelines. However, there are these bad things and so we do need guidelines. I'm amazed you can't see the logic in that.

I'll see if I can explain it in another way. Look at kids. Kids can get into all kinds of trouble(i.e., actually physical danger). Sometimes they do bad things, such as getting into fights. Thus, kids are given guidelines as to how to live their life, these guidelines often being reinforced with punishment for misbehaving in order to teach to obey these guidelines(effectiveness of punishment/reward system of teaching is irrelevant here as that is not what's being discussed).

Likewise, adults also can get themselves into all kinds of trouble. Sometimes they do bad things, such as getting into fights. Thus, adults are given guidelines(i.e., laws from the government, 'religious rules', etc) on how to live their life in a way in which they are less likely to get into trouble.

Do you still not see the logic? You asked for logic, so please do not ignore the logic. ¬_¬

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Nippy


But this is exactly what you were talking about earlier! People do the same with marriages in 24 hours! Whats the difference in spening thousands of pounds on a wedding and just living with each other if you get the same rights? No one would marry anymore (which IMO is a bad thing because marriages that last with couples that truly love each other is a great thing) but some people can't afford marriage so they have to settle for partnership, so why should they have their rights reduced, just because they lack a "piece of paper", as Eminem calls it.

I admit I don't know how "thousands of pounds" translates into American currency, but I doubt there is anyone who can't afford a wedding. A wedding does not have to be a big elaborate ceremony. My friend's mum got married and, though I don't know how much any of the legal aspects may cost, the ceremony cost her less than $100. Besides, isn't the father of the bride supposed to pay for the wedding?

[frogus]

I think I understand what you mean by 'falling into temptation' and by sinning intentionally, but we should try and clear it up as I think there is a contradiction in what you're saying...

the real question I suppose in this matter is: Do you believe that anyone ever does wrong on purpose? Does the person who does wrong intentionally do so because they know what is right, but they want to do what is wrong, or do they do so because they do not know what is right?
If it is the former, why would somebody want to do somehting wrong? Because they are overcome with pleasure or desire?
In that case, isn't sinning deliberately just the same as 'falling into temptation', as you define it?, ie knowing what is right but being overcome by desire and forced by that to do wrong?

were you actually mistaken in this way or do your views differ from the ones I have put into the imaginary conversation above?

ps what is '¬_¬' ?

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by EMINEM


I think a marriage is still a marriage even if the couple don't love each other but nonetheless abide by the legal conventions that would make it official. After all, it's still a custom in some Eastern countries to marry someone they hardly even know (arranged marriages). Whether or not that marriage is considered fine and dandy in the eys of God I can't know for certain

... I'm leaning towards saying that it is indeed since in the New Testament, Paul insists that Christians submit to governmental authority in all matters where there is no contradiction with Scripture, and that would include rituals and rites of solemnization.

A marriage of "love" is a relatively recent thing. A marriage of "souls" on the other hands sounds distinctly New Agey, and an even newer [hokey?] phenomenon.

Geez, EMINEM, you surprise me, sorta. A marriage of "love," relatively recent? *looks into the Bible* Sure looks like Moses married because of love. Hmm...I'm seeing what looks like love between Joseph and Mary.

Sure, arranged marriages occur, and they may even have a chance for turning into a real marriage, meaning a marriage filled with love. Marriage does not need law to be a marriage in God's eyes. Man needs law because he is foolish, stubborn, and often makes mistakes. As I have been saying, it is a guideline in order to keep us from doing what is wrong because we are foolish, stubborn, and often make mistakes. If man is so foolish as to need laws telling him not to kill others, then what makes you think that man is not foolish enough to need laws explaining what is and what isn't considered marriage?

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by frogus
I think I understand what you mean by 'falling into temptation' and by sinning intentionally, but we should try and clear it up as I think there is a contradiction in what you're saying...

the real question I suppose in this matter is: Do you believe that anyone ever does wrong on purpose? Does the person who does wrong intentionally do so because they know what is right, but they want to do what is wrong, or do they do so because they do not know what is right?
If it is the former, why would somebody want to do somehting wrong? Because they are overcome with pleasure or desire?
In that case, isn't sinning deliberately just the same as 'falling into temptation', as you define it?, ie knowing what is right but being overcome by desire and forced by that to do wrong?

were you actually mistaken in this way or do your views differ from the ones I have put into the imaginary conversation above?

ps what is '¬_¬' ?

Neither, as I was not as specific as you're wanting. The defining line between deliberate and unintentional is not clear with any 'sin.' Look at the different "types" of murder for example. If you've thought about killing someone, then you get into an argument with them, which turns into a fight in which you kill the person, is it a)pre-meditated, b)'temporary insanity'(in other words, you temporarily lost control of yourself, including the "knowledge" of what is right or wrong), or c.)self-defense?

I would say probably b or c since it happened as the result of an argument and occured during a fight. As for a, well, that would probably depend on the rest of the evidence. The thing is, do you decide to do it despite knowing it is wrong or is it just something that sorta happens. How do you decide whether it is one or the other, I can't say for certain. Some people might say one thing was deliberate, while another might say it was unintentional. Either way, the person did wrong.

Does this answer your question?

Oh, and '¬_¬' is a 'smilie'. The ¬'s are eyes and the _ is a mouth. Look at it for a bit and see if you can realize the facial expression it depicts.

[EMINEM]

@Frogus
You are contradicting yourself Eminem..you said earlier that it was quite possible to get married (the vegas example?) without being in love, just to get at your parents etc, in which case the marriage will be doomed from the start. To say that getting married makes one happy is ridiculous and I don't think you believe it yourself. I don't think that you can really claim that a depressed bloke could go out and force a woman to marry him and then wake up the next morning happy.

EMINEM
I'm not stating anything; all I did was cite some statistics that show that married people are happier than single people, and even more so than those separated and divorced. And it is certainly NOT ridiculous to suppose that the reason for their happiness is because they have husbands and wives who love and accept them unconditionally (ideally, anyway). "Getting" married won't won't make you happy. "Being" married for a majority of people certain does.

[Nippy]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn


I admit I don't know how "thousands of pounds" translates into American currency, but I doubt there is anyone who can't afford a wedding. A wedding does not have to be a big elaborate ceremony. My friend's mum got married and, though I don't know how much any of the legal aspects may cost, the ceremony cost her less than $100. Besides, isn't the father of the bride supposed to pay for the wedding?

A wedding is supposed to mean something. You are supposed to have friends and family and an occasion to be joyful for, after all, you are 'supposed' to be committed to each other for the rest of your life? The father is supposed to pay for it, but a poor family, what then? But this is beside the point. My real point was that just because someone is able to pay $100, £75 or whatever it costs to get married should not be able to have more rights than a couple that have lived together for a long time! What right does Church, government and any establishment have to say that you have to be married to be able to decide if your partner should be let out of a coma or not.

[EMINEM]

Every right in the world. That's why its called the Government. If you don't like it, go out and make a big political ruckus, break the law and suffer the consequences, or give up your citizenship and move to a different country where marriage is no different from co-habitation.

[Xandax]

Originally posted by EMINEM


I see it as both a legal act AND a spiritual union; the letter and spirit, so to speak. I think both elements must be present for the marriage to be whole. Without love, a marriage is empty. On the other hand, without legal or societal recognition, it's not even a marriage.

But marriage does not equal happiness - if not love and commitment exists.
I agree that for a marriage to be succesfull there must be commitment but that is not the point in question.

But I do not agree that one must be marriage to be happy or at least more happy than any 2 people in love that are comitted to each other (wich has nothing to do with marriage).

[Xandax]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

<snip>
It may not do so as much as it should, but marriage does provide a structure to help us fight against temptation.
<snip>
[/color]

Actually it dosen't - a piece of paper on a commitment will not stop somebody from cheating more, than they would in another partnership without that document that says "Married".

It is frowned just as much upon if somebody cheats when not married than when married.

You can't say that marriaged people cheat less then not-married in a similar relationship - if you do I'd like to see numbers, and well documented numbers from a renowned statisitcal survey.

The temptation to cheat is solely build on peoples trust and love for each other - if there isn't that trust, it dosen't matter how many pices of paper you have, it will do squat.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by EMINEM
@Frogus
You are contradicting yourself Eminem..you said earlier that it was quite possible to get married (the vegas example?) without being in love, just to get at your parents etc, in which case the marriage will be doomed from the start. To say that getting married makes one happy is ridiculous and I don't think you believe it yourself. I don't think that you can really claim that a depressed bloke could go out and force a woman to marry him and then wake up the next morning happy.

EMINEM
I'm not stating anything; all I did was cite some statistics that show that married people are happier than single people, and even more so than those separated and divorced. And it is certainly NOT ridiculous to suppose that the reason for their happiness is because they have husbands and wives who love and accept them unconditionally (ideally, anyway). "Getting" married won't won't make you happy. "Being" married for a majority of people certain does.

I'm wondering how that is relevant to this discussion, EMINEM. This topic isn't "married vs. single." If the statistics compared the happiness of married couples and couples that aren't married but are living together, then it would be more applicable.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Nippy


A wedding is supposed to mean something. You are supposed to have friends and family and an occasion to be joyful for, after all, you are 'supposed' to be committed to each other for the rest of your life? The father is supposed to pay for it, but a poor family, what then? But this is beside the point. My real point was that just because someone is able to pay $100, £75 or whatever it costs to get married should not be able to have more rights than a couple that have lived together for a long time! What right does Church, government and any establishment have to say that you have to be married to be able to decide if your partner should be let out of a coma or not.

As I have said, the laws are guidelines(with consequences for disobeying, of course) to keep thing structured. Structure is necessary. Sure, some chaos can be fun, but when it comes to important things, structure is needed.

A wedding ceremony means as much as you make it mean. A ceremony does not have to be elaborate. The point is not the ceremony, but that you're getting married and publically professing your love, devotion, and commitment to each other.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Xandax
Actually it dosen't - a piece of paper on a commitment will not stop somebody from cheating more, than they would in another partnership without that document that says "Married".

It is frowned just as much upon if somebody cheats when not married than when married.

You can't say that marriaged people cheat less then not-married in a similar relationship - if you do I'd like to see numbers, and well documented numbers from a renowned statisitcal survey.

The temptation to cheat is solely build on peoples trust and love for each other - if there isn't that trust, it dosen't matter how many pices of paper you have, it will do squat.

I never said a piece of paper will do any of that. There is more to being married than getting a piece of paper and I have not once said otherwise. Getting married also involves more than getting a piece of paper. Getting married is professing your love, devotion, and commitment to each other in front of others. These so-called partnerships just require you to move in together, which can be done without telling anyone that it is occuring. Because you are professing your promise to stay together in front of others, you are even more bound to not break your promise. The piece of paper that ya'll so lovingly refer to is nothing more than a symbol of that promise that affects certain legal things and nothing more. The wedding rings are another symbol of that promise. These symbols can also help to remind you of your promise. It shouldn't be possible to forget, but some people have selective memory.

I never said that married people cheat less than people in these so-called partnerships. I haven't looked for any information saying one way or the other, nor do I care to. I wouldn't trust the statistics to be accurate anyway. I'm saying that it is easier to rationalize it being okay to cheat in these so-called 'partnerships' than in Marriage, which goes along with the whole point of peopl e rationalizing these so-called partnerships as a way to avoid their fear of truly committing by getting married. If you're not afraid to make that commitment, then what's stopping you?

[Xandax]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

<snip>
Getting married is professing your love, devotion, and commitment to each other in front of others. These so-called partnerships just require you to move in together, which can be done without telling anyone that it is occuring. Because you are professing your promise to stay together in front of others, you are even more bound to not break your promise. The piece of paper that ya'll so lovingly refer to is nothing more than a symbol of that promise that affects certain legal things and nothing more. The wedding rings are another symbol of that promise. These symbols can also help to remind you of your promise. It shouldn't be possible to forget, but some people have selective memory.
<snip>

Again we can draw attention to the 24-hours open drive though weddings in ei. Vegas.
Also moving in together as you put it has nothing to do with a relationship.
A relationship will exsits regardless of the promised made infront of others (or the organ player in case of Vegas) if these two people love each other and are comitted to each other.
You can not state that marriage is better becuase other people see the promise - wich is just as easlily broken as the promise two people make when comiting in a relationship outside the boundaries of marriage.

What reason do you have to belive that 2 people in love, will be more happy in a marriage than out of a marriage if they so choose?
Because they are less inclined to cheat because some people has seen the bride in a white dress saying some words?
Because the law says that they have some benefits that unmarried people don't?

All this has nothing to do with the point - wich is love.

Love exist outside marriage as well as inside - some people wish to symbolise it with a wedding, others don't - there is no reasoning that happyness can exist better in the marriaged than out.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Xandax


Again we can draw attention to the 24-hours open drive though weddings in ei. Vegas.
Also moving in together as you put it has nothing to do with a relationship.
A relationship will exsits regardless of the promised made infront of others (or the organ player in case of Vegas) if these two people love each other and are comitted to each other.
You can not state that marriage is better becuase other people see the promise - wich is just as easlily broken as the promise two people make when comiting in a relationship outside the boundaries of marriage.

What reason do you have to belive that 2 people in love, will be more happy in a marriage than out of a marriage if they so choose?
Because they are less inclined to cheat because some people has seen the bride in a white dress saying some words?
Because the law says that they have some benefits that unmarried people don't?

All this has nothing to do with the point - wich is love.

Love exist outside marriage as well as inside - some people wish to symbolise it with a wedding, others don't - there is no reasoning that happyness can exist better in the marriaged than out.

You speak of a couple having the love and commitment without being married, but if they love each other so much and are so committed to each other, then why are they so afraid of getting married? Are they afraid they'll find they're not as committed/in love as they think they are? Please explain.