marriage vs. partnership

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 9:39 am

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper

I don't have a problem with getting married. If getting married is important to my eventual partner then I will be happy to do so- if it makes her happy. It's simply that I don't think it is all that important, myself. What I am against is the notion that I should be pressured into marriage because society/God/whoever thinks I should. If I love someone and they love me then that should be good enough in itself.

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?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 9:43 am

@Georgi
And SS, that's missing the point anyway. Can you show any reasons other than the legalities why marriage is better than non-marital partnership? You haven't done so yet, all the other reasons anyone has mentioned are equally applicable to an unmarried partnership. Maybe we should conclude from this that the only reason people should get married is because of the legalities.

EMINEM:
Once the spiritual dimension of marriage (that is, a relationship sanctified in the presence of God) is removed or made completely irrelevant by society, the only reason to get marriage then will be for the legal benefits. But that is a poor reason to do so, and makes a mockery of what God originally intended for marriage to be.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 9:58 am

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?

Hmmm... I usually hear this from people who consider themselves religious but refuse to go to church because, "God is everywhere," and that "he can hear me no matter where I pray." To which I usually answer, "Why bother attending class when you can study in your own room?" 'Point being, you'll miss out on more than you think, and there are lessons you cannot learn by yourself.

Anyway, the church, or temple, or synogogue, is more than just the building; it's the people, the assembly of believers, both clergy and laity, that constitute the family of the God who is worshipped there. When you get married in a religious wedding, you're pledging solemn vows to your partner in the presence of the entire "church." It's not a secret or private ceremony between two people, but a public celebration of your commitment to each other, and the recognition of that commitment by God, community, and family.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 10:24 am

Some interesting statistics that concern marriage and happiness
(lifted almost verbatim from a university textbook, "Psychology Themes & Variations, Wayne Weiten, Santa Clara U., 2001, pp 422-424):

Factors that DO NOT predict happiness:
Money
Age
Parenthood
Intelligence
Physical Attractiveness (AMEN!)

MODERATELY good predictors of happiness:
Religion
Health
Social Activity
Culture

STRONG predictors of happiness:
Marriage
Work
Personality

RE: Marriage - 90% of people eventually marry... although people complain alot about their marriages, the evidence indicates that marital status is a key correlate of happiness. Among both men and women, married people are significantly happier than people who are single or divorced (according to the graph I'm looking at, approximately 40% happier than people who are single, 50% happier than those separated, and 55% happer than those divorced. Among women, the numbers are slightly higher).

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 10:36 am

Eminem, they are married because they are happy, they are not happy because they are married.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 10:40 am

Originally posted by frogus
Eminem, they are married because they are happy, they are not happy because they are married.

Cause if they where happy because they where married - we whouldn't have so many divorced people.

So if married couples are 55% more happy then divorced people - then why did they divorce in the first place? - they were 55% more happy tobegin with.

Happyness comes from being with the person you love, not (nesecarily) from being married to the person you love. Most people become married to show their love for each other - and thus become married because they are happy.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 10:41 am

Originally posted by EMINEM

Hmmm... I usually hear this from people who consider themselves religious but refuse to go to church because, "God is everywhere," and that "he can hear me no matter where I pray." To which I usually answer, "Why bother attending class when you can study in your own room?" 'Point being, you'll miss out on more than you think, and there are lessons you cannot learn by yourself.

I completely agree that the formal structure and organized ritual of a community of believers met for worship is an extremely good device for amplifying communication with the divine, as well as strengthening community bonds. But some people achieve that same sense of communion with the divine in greater degree outside the community. Is a priest necessary to hear one's confessions? So the RCC (post-13th century) would have us believe. I'd disagree. And marriage is a ceremony under whatever deity you believe in, not under a parson, priest, rabbi, or what have you, as an interpreter.

When you get married in a religious wedding, you're pledging solemn vows to your partner in the presence of the entire "church." It's not a secret or private ceremony between two people, but a public celebration of your commitment to each other, and the recognition of that commitment by God, community, and family.

Complete agreement on this point, as I indicated above. This is the cultural aspect of marriage, and points to the social function served by a religious community of like spirits. However, that's not to say that marriage without a priest or a church, solemnly, lovingly sworrn under the eyes of your god, is any less a marriage--correct?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 10:45 am

Originally posted by frogus
Eminem, they are married because they are happy, they are not happy because they are married.

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

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 10:59 am

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).

Seriously, how old are you? This is the most naïve thing I have heard all week. Trust me on this: nothing could be further from the truth.

Happiness comes before, and is more enduring than marriage; and marriage alone no more makes people happy than psychic surgery makes people well.

gah!

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 11:03 am

Originally posted by fable

I completely agree that the formal structure and organized ritual of a community of believers met for worship is an extremely good device for amplifying communication with the divine, as well as strengthening community bonds. But some people achieve that same sense of communion with the divine in greater degree outside the community. Is a priest necessary to hear one's confessions? So the RCC (post-13th century) would have us believe. I'd disagree. And marriage is a ceremony under whatever deity you believe in, not under a parson, priest, rabbi, or what have you, as an interpreter.

... However, that's not to say that marriage without a priest or a church, solemnly, lovingly sworrn under the eyes of your god, is any less a marriage--correct?

1. No, I don't believe a priest is necessary for confession. James 5:16 admonishes Christains is general to "confess your sins to one another... so that you may be healed." When he wrote this, there was no recognition between clergy and laity in the Jerusalem church, but rather "a priesthood of all believers." There is also no mention of penance. But this is a Protestant view. Catholics may tend to differ.

2. A marriage isn't a marriage unless church and/or state say otherwise. Now the couple can call themselves husband and wife all they want, but they have no legal or religious weight to back up their claims. "But it's just a piece of paper!" Granted, but so is the Bill of Rights.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 11:09 am

Originally posted by EMINEM
2. A marriage isn't a marriage unless church and/or state say otherwise. Now the couple can call themselves husband and wife all they want, but they have no legal or religious weight to back up their claims. "But it's just a piece of paper!" Granted, but so is the Bill of Rights.

You are now discussing marriage as a legal act, not as a spiritual union. This would seem to imply that you see them as separate things--that a couple could be legally married but without a scrap of love, or married in heart and soul, but without any legal foundation. True?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 11:09 am

Originally posted by Waverly
Seriously, how old are you? This is the most naïve thing I have heard all week. Trust me on this: nothing could be further from the truth.

Happiness comes before, and is more enduring than marriage; and marriage alone no more makes people happy than psychic surgery makes people well.

gah!

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.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 11:16 am

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.

If a marriaged isn't based on happyness - thoese two people have absolutly no reason for being married in the first place.

People fall in love - they want to commit - then they *might* get married or they might not want to - but the feeling of happiness with each other is what is the driving force between such 2 people and is the reason that they can/would cope with difficulties.

If the only reason people stay married is commitment - then I surly pitty them.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 11:20 am

Originally posted by fable

You are now discussing marriage as a legal act, not as a spiritual union. This would seem to imply that you see them as separate things--that a couple could be legally married but without a scrap of love, or married in heart and soul, but without any legal foundation. True?

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.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 11:24 am

Originally posted by Xandax

If a marriaged isn't based on happyness - thoese two people have absolutly no reason for being married in the first place.

People fall in love - they want to commit - then they *might* get married or they might not want to - but the feeling of happiness with each other is what is the driving force between such 2 people and is the reason that they can/would cope with difficulties.

If the only reason people stay married is commitment - then I surly pitty them.

Re-read my last post, Xandax. I said "happiness alone" is not a good foundation for marriage, because happiness like all other feelings are temporary in nature. Happiness must be accompanied by commitment in order for the marriage to endure.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 11:29 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

But if the laws were redefined to make these 'partnerships' equal to marriage in all the legal aspects, what then would keep people from moving in together and claiming to be "partners" just for the legal benifits?

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.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 11:34 am

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.

Without love a marriage is empty: is it a marriage in god's eyes, if the forms are followed but the couple don't love one another? And the opposite--a marriage of souls and love, with vows taken outside the legals formulas of the day--is that, too, a marriage in god's eyes?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 11:51 am

Originally posted by fable

Without love a marriage is empty: is it a marriage in god's eyes, if the forms are followed but the couple don't love one another? And the opposite--a marriage of souls and love, with vows taken outside the legals formulas of the day--is that, too, a marriage in god's eyes?

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.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 12:19 pm

Originally posted by Georgi
And SS, that's missing the point anyway. Can you show any reasons other than the legalities why marriage is better than non-marital partnership? You haven't done so yet, all the other reasons anyone has mentioned are equally applicable to an unmarried partnership. Maybe we should conclude from this that the only reason people should get married is because of the legalities.

I haven't missed any point. Legalities is not reason to marry and I have not once said anything to that effect. However, the legalities are a part of getting married and do affect certain aspects of the decision, which is all I've been saying. You, however, have missed my point and ignored my comments on the fear of the need to commit and the rationalization of why "partnership" is okay in order to avoid the commitment one makes by marrying.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 12:24 pm

Originally posted by frogus
So you believe that marriage does not bring any positive elements to a marriage other than giving someone no choice in staying with the person they're with?
Anyway, I think it is obvious to see that if you're having sex with other people, you shouldn't be with your long term partner. That relationship is bad and had better end. Being frightened into not having sex with other people by the 'until death do us part' absolute no escape tying down of marriage is not a good thing. Being scared into doing something is absolutely useless if you still don't want to do it. It destroys one's liberty. For that reason marriage is bad.

You are saying that marriage is good because it gives us a way of properly punishing adulterers rather than letting them get away scott free. You are referencing yourself in a way. You are saying 'because because because'. You cannot say that marriage is good because it puts a lock on having sex with many people, when we haven't even concluded that having sex with many people is bad yet.

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

Marriage is not what locks you into the relationship. Commitment does. Marriage is the way to make that commitment. If you can forgive your husband or wife for committing adultery and they recommit themselves to the marriage, then by all means, forgive and forget.

Your attempt at twisting my words, btw, has done nothing more than provide more proof of the attempts to rationalize the "goodness" of these so-called "partnerships" and avoid the fear of trully committing oneself to another.