marriage vs. partnership

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 8:57 am

Marriage is about love, trust, and commitment. Like I said, if you've got all those in your "partnership," what is keeping you from getting married?

I see this is what you have been saying all along but really, the question is: If you've all those things in your partnership, why do you even need to get married?

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:07 am

Originally posted by Beldin
No offense taken !

But what gave you the idea that *I* was the one who puts so much importance on sex ? In my experience you can't really have sex (good sex that is) ALONE !
D No offense @Aegis. Touching your female side is something different ! ) !
My WIFE is just as sex-crazy as I am - If you choose to call a normal committed partnership "sex-crazy".

BTW - I like your way of discussing. It's much more fun than throwing "The Book" (Bible) at each other...

No worries,

Beldin

First off, what gave you the idea that I don't want to have sex? Sex is something I'm very much looking forward to. I just refuse to have it until I'm married, but neither will I marry just so I can have sex.

Enjoying having sex with your spouse is not sex-crazy. However, considering sex to be a necessary element of a relationship is ridiculous. A relationship can be just as strong, possibly stronger, without sex as with sex. Although, if you're going to stick with your attitude that sex is one of the most important things in a relationship, I guess your relationship wouldn't work without sex.

*pulls out one of this small fits-in-your-pocket New Testament Bibles and throws it at Beldin* What's not fun about that?

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:10 am

Originally posted by frogus
I see this is what you have been saying all along but really, the question is: If you've all those things in your partnership, why do you even need to get married?

Actually, both questions are relevant. However, since I can't come up with an answer to your question that will convince you and you can't come up with an answer to my question that will convince me, further debating in this manner is rather pointless. Don't you agree?

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:32 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

First off, what gave you the idea that I don't want to have sex? Sex is something I'm very much looking forward to. I just refuse to have it until I'm married, but neither will I marry just so I can have sex.
<snip>

Well according to your own words you are just trying to rationalize your fears by saying that.

(thinking of the part where you stated that people whom are in a relationship out side mariage are just scared/affraid of marriage)

Take from the former page after SS asked why people were affraid to marry if they had all the things of a marriage in their relationship.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing (nesecarily) to do with fear - people have their own reasons for own actions, wich I can't explain.
Some are proberly affriad I'll grant you that - but it is not the only thought that governs peoples reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has everything to do with fear. Fear can range in how it shows itself, ranging from panic to rationalizing a way around the fear, and we don't always know that we're afraid, and sometimes when we do know we're afraid, we don't know what we're afraid of.

Peolpe in a relationship can choose not to marry - just as you say you choose not to have sex before you marry, for reasons that might not have to be fear related .

(Whit this I end my contribution to this thread, as I feel I've tried to seek logical answers to why marriage is(should be considered) more *right*, *better* or makes people more *happy*.
I've not found an answer though)

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 11:13 am

Actually, both questions are relevant. However, since I can't come up with an answer to your question that will convince you and you can't come up with an answer to my question that will convince me, further debating in this manner is rather pointless. Don't you agree?

Well I'm trying very hard to convince you. I haven't but I don't believ that I can't...anyway, I would still like to see what convinced *you*...
Remember though SS, I am not arguing that marriage is bad. I am arguing that marriage is no better than non-marriage. For this reason I don't feel obliged to tell you why people shouldn't get married, because I do not believe that people should not get married. I am trying to argue for the case that they should get married if they want to, but nor if they don't. I do not think marriage evil, nor do I think nonmarriage evil, however I do believe that pressure made on people to marry (mainly by the Church, but by society too in cultures other than mine) are evil.
It would be very difficult though for me to give you positive reasons why people should not have to marry, it is more practical for me to just disprove your arguments for marriage being better than non-marriage, and then, seeing as neither of us believe non-marriage to have any virtue, we can assume that I was right all along

. That's where I'm heading.

Anyway, are you saying that you no longer wish to discuss this?

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 1:22 pm

Originally posted by frogus
<snip>
Remember though SS, I am not arguing that marriage is bad. I am arguing that marriage is no better than non-marriage. For this reason I don't feel obliged to tell you why people shouldn't get married, because I do not believe that people should not get married. I am trying to argue for the case that they should get married if they want to, but nor if they don't. <snip>

Hey - that is my view to, and excatly what I've been trying to advocate through my last couple of posts in this thread

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 2:48 pm

Originally posted by frogus
Well I'm trying very hard to convince you. I haven't but I don't believ that I can't...anyway, I would still like to see what convinced *you*...
Remember though SS, I am not arguing that marriage is bad. I am arguing that marriage is no better than non-marriage. For this reason I don't feel obliged to tell you why people shouldn't get married, because I do not believe that people should not get married. I am trying to argue for the case that they should get married if they want to, but nor if they don't. I do not think marriage evil, nor do I think nonmarriage evil, however I do believe that pressure made on people to marry (mainly by the Church, but by society too in cultures other than mine) are evil.
It would be very difficult though for me to give you positive reasons why people should not have to marry, it is more practical for me to just disprove your arguments for marriage being better than non-marriage, and then, seeing as neither of us believe non-marriage to have any virtue, we can assume that I was right all along . That's where I'm heading.

Okay, there's a "problem" here, and also to some extent what is preventing me from being convinced of your the validity of your opinion. You see, we basically agree on everything except for marriageless partnerships. I believe that Marriage Partnerships are right and necessary, but that Marriageless Partnerships are missing a very important aspect, Marriage. You believe that it doesn't matter whether someone is in a Marriage Partnership or a Marriageless Partnership. It is impossible for you to convince me that a Marriage Partnership has no virtue because logic is of no consequence in this emotional and romantic decision. Your only chance of convincing me of your opinion that the two types of Partnership are equal is to convince me that Marriageless Partnership is as good as Marriage Partnership. It is impossible for you to do that, either, and the reason is stated right there in their names. A marriage is the combining of two things into one(look to the marriage of metals to create an alloy as an example). If the Partnership doesn't have Marriage, the combination of the two individuals into one being(obviously not literally physically combined

), then it is a Marriageless Partnership and lacks the most important thing. When choosing who to marry, you must find the 'metal' that will combine with you to form the stronger, long-lasting alloy that the two of you will become when you marry.

Anyway, are you saying that you no longer wish to discuss this?

Not exactly. I'm just starting to get bored with the repetitiveness of this topic. I mean, we've got 460+ posts in this topic and the last 80 or so have been mostly repeating the same things. I'm all for continuing the discussion. I just would like to get out of this rut we seem to be stuck in of repeating ourselves.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:00 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

Not exactly. I'm just starting to get bored with the repetitiveness of this topic. I mean, we've got 460+ posts in this topic and the last 80 or so have been mostly repeating the same things. I'm all for continuing the discussion. I just would like to get out of this rut we seem to be stuck in of repeating ourselves.

Then let's (re-) start by defining WHAT it is that makes the act of marriage (= standing in front of a Judge/Priest/Congregation/.... and exchanging some words which are required by law or religion) so special.

I (and maybe some other people here) just don't see the difference between a partnership in which two people decide to go "all the way" together and a partnership which is bound by law and/or religion.

So WHAT changes in those magic moment when you say "Yes, I do!" ?

No worries,

Beldin

PS:

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

*pulls out one of this small fits-in-your-pocket New Testament Bibles and throws it at Beldin* What's not fun about that?

*catches the book with his teeth, sits down on his heels and waits to be patted on the head* *(or hugged) *

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 10:33 pm

Then let's (re-) start by defining WHAT it is that makes the act of marriage (= standing in front of a Judge/Priest/Congregation/.... and exchanging some words which are required by law or religion) so special.

I (and maybe some other people here) just don't see the difference between a partnership in which two people decide to go "all the way" together and a partnership which is bound by law and/or religion.

So WHAT changes in those magic moment when you say "Yes, I do!" ?

It's a fair question. I can't speak for myself on this, since my wife and I had a fine relationship before we entered marriage to please family and legal matters--but I know that some people view it as an oath of unity taken before the universe, or their god.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 8:27 am

Originally posted by fable

It's a fair question. I can't speak for myself on this, since my wife and I had a fine relationship before we entered marriage to please family and legal matters--but I know that some people view it as an oath of unity taken before the universe, or their god.

Thanks @fable - but the core question remains the same - whats different after those 5 minutes ?

As I see it - the difference is just that some people make the desicion (..to stay with one partner..) for themselves- without further ado - and others need something/someone to make that decision for them...or to take the blame if things do NOT work out right...

No worries,

Beldin

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 8:35 am

Originally posted by Beldin
Thanks @fable - but the core question remains the same - whats different after those 5 minutes ?

I think you're looking for something quantifiable in an area of reality ruled by qualities. Might as well say, "The human body consists of the following minerals and micro-organisms." Yes, but is that all?

In the case of a human being, we can see that the laundry list misses something.

We can't see what remains behind after a couple declare their love in such a ceremony. Perhaps it is just another moment of shared emotional intensity which will help strengthen the family unit. Or perhaps there's something else, and it's intangible. I'm sure some people will say I'm being incredibly romantic or sentimental, while others will claim I'm getting New Agey; but I'm just being analytical at the moment. What can't be seen or quantified may still exist. I don't think Mozart's brain weighed anymore than anybody else's, but he wrote a hell of a lot of great music I enjoy. Clearly, there's more to a lot of life than meets the eye.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 8:47 am

Just of the record-

Might as well say, "The human body consists of the following minerals and micro-organisms." Yes, but is that all?

I believe that that is all. Humans, our emotions and thougths and feelings are all ruled by quantifiable scientific processes. When you hear Mozart you think, 'wow, science isn't that complex, so there must be something else' whereas I think 'wow, science is that complex!'. We will never ever understand the workings of the brain and human emotions, (I think humans will die out before scientific knowledge is that advanced), but in theory it is perfectly possible. What about before anyone knew anything about madicine, other areas of the body? How do people get sick? the ancient egyptians thought...it must be the gods! But we now know everything there is to know about sickness (ok I exagerate). We know in phonomenal detail the precise workings and relationships of every part of the body except the brain, but I think that to believe that just one organ in the body has higher meaning and is a conduit for somethin special (divine?) is just being a bit romantic and sentimental. I would even say New Agey

. Anyway, that's not what the discussion's about, but I'm sure you can divine from that what my position is gonna be...

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 8:48 am

A WORLD of difference, depending on your belief. I suppose if you have no belief, there is no difference - that five minutes is a formal legalistic ceremony with no significance other than it being formal and legalistic. A hand shake would have sufficed to "seal the deal." On the other hand, if you have faith, that five minutes is a special moment, a religious sacrament, a spiritual union consecrated by God between two human beings who have pledged to become "one" in heart and soul for the rest of their lives.

I hate to echo Obi-Wan Kenobi here, but I think it's appropriate to this discussion; "Much of what we consider truth depends largely on our point of view."

Or to quote Hamlet (albeit with a grain of salt), "There's nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 9:15 am

I believe that that is all. Humans, our emotions and thougths and feelings are all ruled by quantifiable scientific processes. When you hear Mozart you think, 'wow, science isn't that complex, so there must be something else' whereas I think 'wow, science is that complex!'.

@Frogus, I think you misunderstand me. I don't hear complexity in Mozart, and I'm not comparing Mozart to science.

I'm saying that the analytical tools science has provided to study the physical parameters of the human brain will reveal that Mozart's looks just like any other. Yet Mozart produced something unique and considered to be a cultural artifact of priceless value by many. Whatever produced that artifact, cannot be seen when looking at Mozart's brain. Whatever it was that led to that result is intangible--a quality, not a quantifiable entity.

We will never ever understand the workings of the brain and human emotions, (I think humans will die out before scientific knowledge is that advanced), but in theory it is perfectly possible.

Anything is possible in theory.

This is one of those argument points that can't really be discussed, since it's a dead counter. You can't argue for or against something indefinable in an infinite future.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 11:11 am

Originally posted by EMINEM
A WORLD of difference, depending on your belief...<snip>

@M'n'M: If you had chosen this wording a little earlier in this thread we would all be done by now...

...

I can live with that POV - it's not for one lifeform to decide what's good for another lifeform - god or no god.....

Originally posted by EMINEM
<snip>
I hate to echo Obi-Wan Kenobi here, but I think it's appropriate to this discussion; "Much of what we consider truth depends largely on our point of view."

Good quote, and don't you dare badmouthing the master, young yedi !!

No worries,

Beldin

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 11:15 am

Originally posted by fable

I think you're looking for something quantifiable in an area of reality ruled by qualities. Might as well say, "The human body consists of the following minerals and micro-organisms." Yes, but is that all?

@fable: Mostly I agree with Frogus , so I'll let him handle that discussion - until I come up with something interresting.

I just wanted to point out, that *I* wasn't the one who saw something "special" in a wedding. I've always said that the situation remains the same with or without ceremony - the question was thus that the "pro-marriage" fraction in this thread should answer - like MM has done...

No worries,

Beldin

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 12:24 pm

Originally posted by Beldin

@M'n'M: If you had chosen this wording a little earlier in this thread we would all be done by now... ...

But where's the fun in that? We live to COMMunicate!

Hakunah Matantah!

EMINEM

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Thu Apr 04, 2002 3:07 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM
A WORLD of difference, depending on your belief. I suppose if you have no belief, there is no difference - that five minutes is a formal legalistic ceremony with no significance other than it being formal and legalistic. A hand shake would have sufficed to "seal the deal." On the other hand, if you have faith, that five minutes is a special moment, a religious sacrament, a spiritual union consecrated by God between two human beings who have pledged to become "one" in heart and soul for the rest of their lives.

I hate to echo Obi-Wan Kenobi here, but I think it's appropriate to this discussion; "Much of what we consider truth depends largely on our point of view."

Or to quote Hamlet (albeit with a grain of salt), "There's nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."

I think it's not so much belief as it is how romantic a person is. A very romantic athiest would se no benefit from a religious ceremony, but recognize that there is something more when that commitment is made. On the other hand, a very not-romantic Christian would most likely get married because of what is written in the Bible, but they would not be so likely to recognize that there is something more there when the commitment has been made.

I, myself, am very much a romantic, and I've often had the dream of a "knight in shining armor" rescuing me from some horrible evil(okay, maybe I help fight the evil a little, but still the same basic idea

), the two of us falling in love, and then getting married. And I will find my Knight In Shining Armor.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Fri Apr 05, 2002 1:07 am

Originally posted by SS
I think it's not so much belief as it is how romantic a person is. A very romantic athiest would se no benefit from a religious ceremony, but recognize that there is something more when that commitment is made.<snip>

Whilst I wouldn't say there's necessarily anything more after getting married than there is otherwise, if it doesn't matter either way to you and your partner would prefer to get married, I see no problems with getting married for their sake. I wouldn't say I'm especially romantic, simply pragmatic.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Apr 05, 2002 8:57 am

Originally posted by Beldin

@fable: Mostly I agree with Frogus , so I'll let him handle that discussion - until I come up with something interresting.

Alas, I think @Frogus has decided to move to greener pastures, in so far as green isn't a subjectively romantic value judgement but a statement of objective light waves based on pigmentation, of course.

Sure you don't want to take a shot at it?