Viewing Thread:
"Marriage"

So, I'm getting married in 7 weeks. I don't think it's still sunk in properly. I have bouts getting excited about it, like when we went for suit fittings etc. It feels real then, same as when we were looking for a venue. Right now though, on a slow friday afternoon at work, it doesn't.

I'm not scared by the thought of it. But on the otherhand, right now, I'm not excited by it either. I'm just like "I'm getting married soon, that's cool." And that's about it.

Is this normal? Are there many married people on here? I'm not getting cold feet at all, it's just.... other people are more excited about it than I am. Maybe it's a bloke thing?

Maybe it's the fact that I've got to use nearly all my holiday for the honeymoon, so I've not had a single day off work this year, and I'm starting to drag because of it.

Anyway, the whole institution of marriage is fine by me. Over the last 3 years me & Mrs YH (to be) have been to about 10 weddings. All bar two have been church weddings. All bar one of them are still happily together. Although I know for a fact that at least one of them has most certainly had it's downs.

Not really sure what the point of this thread is to be honest. Friday musings that now it's out I can't be bothered (or don't want to for some reason) delete. Maybe it's something I'll add too over the next few weeks. Maybe I won't. Maybe it's something that will get some replies, or maybe it's something that none of you will read. Who knows?

Also it still amazes me that we live in a day and age where gay couples cannot legally get married in every sense of the word (they can have civil ceremonies though :s)

Luetchyboy wrote:
> LadyBird I worry for you slightly, how did you manage to take
> something that seemed so obviously unoffensive. I worry for you
> somewhat, but that is only for the period it takes me to post
> this :p


Who are you? You must be new around here..

Luetchyboy wrote:
> Also it still amazes me that we live in a day and age where gay
> couples cannot legally get married in every sense of the word
> (they can have civil ceremonies though :s)

Marriage is a religious ceremony so i really don't see why any religion should fundamentally undermine or contradict whats in their guide/book/etc. I've absolutely no problem with gay couples being legally recognised but they have to accept that you cant force an institution to endorse a direct contradiction to what they represent. It's exactly the same with gay priests. I don't see how you can represent an ideology while directly going against it.

Contradictions.. in.. Christianity..?!?!

I don't think the belief system necessarily needs everyone to walk around like robots. For one, who knows what's gonna happen when you die. Two, who knows what Jesus was up to? Or any of the stories? Jesus contradicts himself it appears, quite a bit. Was he doing it on purpose? Which part of the Bible can you actually trust, and which has been told to us to try and help us understand the world? So.. in the end, who actually understands the Bible, completely? The people who take it word for word? Or people like Charles Manson, who work it out on their own?

I think there's only a few key things you need to do to become a Christian anyway, confessing sin, cutting out any rationality of God possibly not existing, and then, oddly, you have to go and tell someone. At least, that's what people seem to think to understand. Maybe understanding the Bible is more important than actually following it anyway.

Ha i'm not getting in the problems with Christianity, i havent the time or the inclination. Look if Jesus had slipped John the Baptist one while no-one was looking (i'm going to hell) then maybe there would be angle for homosexuals to argue but the bible and subsequentially the church have been pretty clear on where they stand. You cant possibly expect the church to hold a ceremony and bless what they consider a pretty big sin. Being Christians it's part of their belief to be tolerant and forgiving but i dont think endorsing a sin is part of their mandate.

Depends on how you read it!

For example, I can't go into too much detail here as it's a bit rude for this forum, but basically - marriages in the bible, as in, people who got married in the bible.. did it outside of religion. They didn't go to church, they didn't have a festivity blah blah. Wanna know how people seemingly got married in the bible?

They had sex! That's it, it really looks like. Also! Guess what happens if you have sexual feelings from looking at someone? Sin! But it's ok if you actually have sex with them then, because then it makes them your wife. Or so it seems!

Anyway, about homosexuality - there is no mention of marriage between homosexuals in the bible. In fact, take it a step further. There's no mention of homosexuality in the bible either. {{citation needed}}

There is however mention of men having sex with men. Then! It got translated into English and people used homosexuality as the key word for it, so all the lesbians get a dull deal too. But but but.. and again, this goes back to how you read it.

The whole worry over male sex, may very well be a badly translated way of God saying to Moses "Seriously, guys, if you have sex with a man, don't do it in a woman's bed, that's her ground and it's sacred". So - there's a possibility that two men can not 'become one' as such, but they can have sex.

The problem is, there's a lot of different translations. Nobody really understands what it's going on about most of the time - but nobody will admit it. Instead, they'll keep to the English translated 'HOMOSEXUALS ARE AN ABOMINATION' blah blah

Also - on an interesting note too, abortions aren't actually mentioned in the bible. And another thing? It depends again on the way you read the words, but there's a possibility, right in Genesis when God creates Adam and Eve, it's stated that nobody becomes a human until they breathe.

The main issue with The Bible and any other religious text is that it's an early version of Fox News or CNN. It's reporting events, not actually happening at the time but later, with a less than objective view. What we get is monks who translate and throw out texts and add ideas which are prevailent at the time, both in religion and society. So before you even get the next level of translation to different languages and different versions (of which there are many) you have outside influences creeping in. This is, of course, if you believe that Jesus was The Son of God anyway.

I can stand up and say I'm a Christian (a Catholic one, at that) and still suggest that The Bible is best not taken literally. Catholic churches now have study groups and discussion which is open to attendees discussing all sorts of things you'd be surprised about.

Anyway, this goes somewhere, I promise! Marriage in the modern Catholic sense (and pretty much Christianity in general) is about:

a) Two people making a commitment (think of signing a contract at a bank or something) to each other and God.

b) Responsibility to bring up children in the correct manner.

In the past it was all about Sex too, yes Grix, but that's changed with the times and is an example of one of those things that has crept in to the whole marriage concept while Christianity was still young.

Outside of Church, weddings are now considered to be part of society, so are not just the remit of religious groups, hence a civil ceremony. Same sex couples have just as much right to be married in a civil ceremony as anyone else and it doesn't make sense for any modern country to stop this. The religious aspect is more complicated as any religion is based on a set of rules which start from the ground up.

The Gay issue is up there nearer the more recent additions (in historical terms) so I could see it being possibly accepted at some point. I have no objection to it, but I can see why others do. However simple or silly it sounds there is the biological arguement over whether being gay is a logical or acceptable thing for humans who are designed to reproduce in a certain way and some people are going to stick to that.

For me, personally, getting married was a commitment. The worst thing would be to get married and have no plan to commit to the whole thing, even if things were hard. That, of course, doesn't mean that people should stay in a marriage where there is violence etc but it seems more and more people don't even bother trying to sort things out when they get tough and only think about themselves.

I'm quite vehemously against the concept of organised religion. Every time I see or hear the mention of religion it is in an negative or detrimental manor.

Don't get me wrong, it is not my place to tell people what they can or can't believe (that's religions). But for me I find the whole concept of the bible ridiculous.

BUT that is not to say that I don't believe that there is no such thing as a being of higher power, I just find the concept of organised religion disgusting.

Back to topic I think marriage is as you take it, it's nice to show that level of commitment but is it natural? That's not to say that there aren't happily married couples out there but it's dived into way to quickly and divorce rates are way to high as a result.

Well, this has developed on a little more that I thought it would!

I would say that I am not religious, however, the majority of the guidelines in the bible are just common sense, surely? Don't kill. Don't steal. Treat people how you want to be treated etc.

We have gone along to church a few times in the run up to the wedding, and the minister does make being religious sound really good. He's certainly a good orator and obviously believes with absolute certainty. Do people become religious through fear of missing out? "That sounds great, I want to be a part of that!" and so they go through life not quesitoning, but believing because because of the fear that they miss out on something.

If God does exist, do you think he would want followers who are only following through fear? Afterall, there is that expression "God fearing Chrisian." Surely if God is as benevolent as he is supposed to be, then what's to be scared of?

Some people would argue that the decline in active church following in this country has led to the 'breakdown' in society. Is this true? I don't know. Is it just bad parenting that leads to gang culture and youth crime?

Divorce certainly isn't the taboo it used to be. Is this because the bible taught that marriage was for life and as less people are God fearing now, they have no respect for those ideas? I think there is some basis in this. I have no facts to back this up though :-)

Is it just because it's easier to get divorced, and people would rather give up than sort through their problems?

Does a family breaking up have an affect on any children involved? Personally I think that it does. Parents are role models for their children, and if a child only has one parent, then they only have one person to take their cues from as to how to behave etc as they grow up. Although to contradict myself, I would accept that it would be better to have 1 good parent than 2 bad ones. Perhaps some sort of test can be invented so only people who will make good parents are allowed children. Not quite sure how that would work though...

YH wrote:
> We have gone along to church a few times in the run up to the
> wedding, and the minister does make being religious sound really
> good. He's certainly a good orator and obviously believes with
> absolute certainty. Do people become religious through fear of
> missing out? "That sounds great, I want to be a part of
> that!" and so they go through life not quesitoning, but
> believing because because of the fear that they miss out on
> something.

Ah there's a name for that. It's the something theory or conumdrum. You know, the idea that being religious is just a great insurance policy incase God actually exists and if he doesnt, it's not like you're losing out anyway. Gah the name is going to annoy me until i work it out now.

> Some people would argue that the decline in active church
> following in this country has led to the 'breakdown' in society.
> Is this true? I don't know. Is it just bad parenting that leads
> to gang culture and youth crime?

Those people who would argue it, Christians.
I really think it's give and take. The movement away from the Church has allowed us to become a far more tolerant society to the outsiders but there is a probably a case for it going in the opposite direction with each other.
I think you need some sort of moral compass growing up and the church used to fulfill that role but parents are quite capable of doing a better job. Unfortunately though if let people take care of themselves, some will end up in the gutter and thats what happened. I dont think the lack of religion is the reason for that, i think it's universal nature to assert your dominance when you can, for some to thrive and others to suffer. There has always been the haves and the have nots, whats changed is expectation and standards. * Goes into a long rant, then deletes *
...
You know what the definition of stress is? It's getting upset because you cant reach the targets you set yourself. Who sets the targets these days? Who are the ones responsible for this idea of having the perfect life, wife, baby, home etc? Its the sodding media. They're the ones at the root of all this bitterness and jealousy and yet at the same time, they give attention to it, glamourise it, hype it up beyond all importance which is tragically ironic because all it does it desensitize everyone. You know the way you deal with a naughty child, you ignore them. They're just feeding the beast with this wave after wave of bad news.

You know i actually shortened that rant. Think that'll do me for another 6 months.