Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Monogomy sounds so Lonely (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Monogomy sounds so Lonely
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Funean said:
Heart to heart intimacy is rare, and hard. It has a cost. One of those costs is "everyone else." Like other spiritual disciplines, the road is narrow, but the rewards can be great for those who have the taste for them.

As jasonr says, it doesn't seem to help all that much to get "it" out of your system. Regardless of levels and breadth of experience, what's necessary to make a marriage really successful is the same. It's utterly unclear whether playing the field beforehand helps or hinders that enterprise. I suspect it's different for different folks.

If what you want is a lot of variety, great! Go for it. If you want an intimate relationship of soul-searing closeness, emotional and sexual fidelity are part of that. Or at least, part of the common variety. It is the fastest, "easiest" route to that kind of intimacy and deep connection. There might be other routes, but they don't seem to be reliable, as far as I can tell.

Damn. [Smile]

I just read an old short story from Thieves' World III called "Looking for Satan" by Vonda N. McIntyre.

Of course, Satan just happens to be the name of one of the characters, but there is a communal relationship between the four main characters (three women, one man) and it's described pretty nicely.

It makes one realize that our version of a "committed relationship" is quite myopic and stifling. There are so many possible permutations we could be in, but thanks to our inherited traditions, we make do with what we've got.

However, the author did seem to stipulate that effortless homesty and innocence were perhaps a necessary ingredient of a multi partner relationship.

[ November 27, 2006, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: canadian ]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, the author did seem to stipulate that effortless homesty and innocence were perhaps a necessary ingredient of a multi partner relationship.
ANY good relationship.

It's damned complicated, maintaining simplicity, so that's why the 1:1 seems to work best for most of us mortals (Heinlein characters aside).

We're too distractable, most of us, to add more to it. Kids are bad enough.

Of course, exceptions can be made. [Wink]

[ November 27, 2006, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Funean ]

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, thing is, if you haven't played the field, you curiousity will gnaw at you at times of strain on the 1:1 relationship. At least that's how I figure it. I dunno.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess there is jealousy to consider...but that's only an issue if someone is very insecure. I was crazy jealous with my first girlfriend (oh, so long ago). I wanted to "own" her time and affections.

These days, I'm just pleased to be thought about once in a while, which probably sounds sad, but actually is quite fantastic. I've sort of reached a point where my ego gets less and less in the way of a happy life.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see monogamy as a way of dealing with our human limitations of time and space, not to mention limited emotional resources. Could I deal with more than one man? Not to the same depth I am able to relate with one. Were I to be unlimited by time and space, however, it would be theoretically possible.
As far as curiosity gnawing at me in times of strain, I think no matter how many other people you've been with, once you start playing the comparison game and indulging in what-if's, you're already in trouble. Marriage requires commitment and if you're spending time wishing for something else you aren't fully committed. I don't think being able to chalk up a list full of prior experiences will help you out with that...after all, no matter how many partners you've had, there are always going to more than you didn't have.

Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Loki
Member
Member # 2312

 - posted      Profile for Loki   Email Loki   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The concept of Line Marriage, expressed so well in, 'the moon is a harsh mistress' by Heinlein, is just so appealing to me. And people are so skeptical if I talk about it, but if feels the skepticism is learned, not inherant.
Posts: 311 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Try Ursula K. Le Guin's collection 'Birthday Of The World' canadian. She runs the gamut of possible relationships including various 4-way ones. Nothing salacious, LeGuin is just convinced that humanity revels in complexity. You also get the excellent 'Paradises Lost', a great take on the 'generation ship' idea.
Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sharpshin
Member
Member # 3175

 - posted      Profile for sharpshin   Email sharpshin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Having recently had to break off relations with my own "great what-if"-- and most everybody who has reached a certain age has one in their remote past, the person of whom you think upon reconnection, as he or she does, "if only we'd known"-- I would say that sexual monogamy is easier to maintain than emotional monogamy, for me.

It was a very complicated situation. Her life was a mess and I could not let her down. But a truly deep emotional bond with someone outside the primary relationship almost always includes sublimated sexual desire, assuming both people still find each other desireable at all. There's nothing lacking in my primary relationship and there was never any chance of it turning into a full fledged affair. As she said, no stolen kisses for us, no slightly embarrassing moments of rediscovering aging bodies. Better to remember with that soft, sweet tug of the heart than try to create the new improved version.

She is allright now. Time for me to take my bows and get offstage, both for my sake, my sweetie's sake, and my old flame's and her new sweetie's sake too. She has always been emotionally promiscuous, though physically faithful since her late twenties. She is, I think, buying into emotional monogamy for the first time. I always have, and the situation was confusing and disorienting for me to say the least. I never settle in relationships. I'd had deep emotional affairs before, sans sex for one reason or another, but never when attached.

That bein' said, I agree with RickyB. I was never one for playing the field all that much, but being a serial monogamist for most of my life certainly helped get me through. Polyamory may be possible for some. It isn't for me. Mild sexual desire for another is no big deal to me in and of itself. The day we stop looking is the day we die.

But I couldn't handle living with a divided heart forever.

I have lived on communes where certain relationships were supposedly open... back when everybody was into reading Heinlein. Never worked for those who tried it. Jealousy always raised its ugly head.

It's tough enough with a one-on-one.

[ November 28, 2006, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: sharpshin ]

Posts: 318 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My experience is that monogamy is very simple but often hard work.

That we can be distracted, from our devotion to our spouse, by someone else (often someone else's spouse) tends to obscure the essential truth: a marriage is ever most at risk from its married members.

A holiday tune to help us maintain some marital stability amid Xmas frenzy:

'Rudolph the brown-nosed yesdear,
Had a very grimy nose
And if you ever saw it
You would even say it grows...'

But one can only tell these white lies so much, for if it grows to large, the requisite brown-nosing becomes awkward... sometimes you have to stop and say,

"I told you I loved you, now leave me alone!"

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sharpshin
Member
Member # 3175

 - posted      Profile for sharpshin   Email sharpshin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't found my current to be hard work at all. Of course, took me forty-six years to find her... and most of my previous relationships were hard work eventually, even without kids.

There can come a point when no amount of hard work is enough. I know of too many couples who appear to have stayed together way too long, even after the kids are grown. They seem to take little pleasure in each other's company. They're trapped by their own ideals.

Of course there are exceptions, but this is, I think, why divorce is so much more common now than it was during my parents' time. The social stigma is nowhere near as great as it was back then.

Talk about agape all you want-- life is too short to spend most of it with somebody you really don't want to be with, or who doesn't really want to be with you.

[ November 28, 2006, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: sharpshin ]

Posts: 318 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The trick is to marry a woman whose tushie you really DO love to kiss... [Wink]
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I can't marry ALL women!
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well then, just marry *enough*.

Can't you feel your lips just pucker, though?

'To all the girls I've loved before...'

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Eh, thing is, I've more than once seen folks comitted to "waiting for marriage" hurry up the marriage thing in order to satisfy their genitals. Tends not to work out great in the long run.

Personally, I have all kinds of wierd issues about physical intimacy and don't even like to be touched by most people. I dated a lot of different women when I was single, and those relationships often ended when I didn't poke on demand.

I've known a lot of couples who had "open relationships". I once lost a friend because I wouldn't have sex with his wife. From my point of view, it seemed that in *almost* every couple the skrogging of others was the result of one partners desire and the others willingness to please.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, wierd friend. That's not a story you hear every day!

About the hurrying marriage thing... I have no problem with sex being one of the motivations for getting married - it's a good thing to want, just like wanting to have a life together, have children together, have friends and family come celebrate your love at a nice wedding - the problem comes in when someone is immature enough to want the sex or the nice wedding or whatever even though they are not ready for what comes with it. Here the problem is not the waiting, it's the immaturity of lying to yourself that you're ready when you're really not, just to get what you want.

Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have to say that you don't just get sex, family, a nice wedding or all the nice trappings of being married when you marry. You get a spouse too. Someone that you chose to be bound with at some level. Unless you want high bills from "The hammer" attorney at law, you better make sure you know the person you're marrying. I don't mean the biblical know. Sex should be a byproduct to me of the procreative unity of the minds between the partners. No chance for kids in my opinion means your not really bound in any meaningful way. You get back to the tool analogy and screwdrivers.
Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No chance for kids in my opinion means your not really bound in any meaningful way.
*sigh*

So, the sex life'll be ending when the female spouse goes through menopause?

This will be very upsetting news to a large number of people I know.

Not to mention that I'm saddened to know that my own relationship lacks a "meaningful bond."

Wait'll I tell her...

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"About the hurrying marriage thing... I have no problem with sex being one of the motivations for getting married - it's a good thing to want, just like wanting to have a life together, have children together, have friends and family come celebrate your love at a nice wedding - the problem comes in when someone is immature enough to want the sex or the nice wedding or whatever even though they are not ready for what comes with it. "

Um, not sure where you came up with that. It's definitely not a good idea to have sex be a motivation for marriage. Guys will say ANYTHING when they're horny, it's why we exist.


"the problem comes in when someone is immature enough to want the sex or the nice wedding or whatever even though they are not ready for what comes with it."

So how do you know its not worth it until afterwards, when its too late. You're saying that sex should be a motivation to get married, but its bad to have sex be a motivation to get married.

Nice.


"Here the problem is not the waiting, it's the immaturity of lying to yourself that you're ready when you're really not, just to get what you want."

...ready for sex, you mean. Not ready for marriage, because thats different. Perhaps the 'immaturity' comes, not from lying to yourself, but from being told your whole life that marriage=sex and sex-->love.

In other words, you wouldn't have to worry about ruining your life, your wife's life, and your children's lives by rushing into marriage because of forces you don't understand.

[ November 29, 2006, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, girls will say anything for a fancy dress and a nice sparkly ring, but we don't want people to get married only because they want the dress, so why don't we start having wedding receptions years before the wedding so people don't get married for the wrong reason?

What I mean by the sex being a motivation for marriage is that wanting to have sex is not a bad thing... I didnt't say it should be the ONLY motivation for marriage. Likewise if I want to have kids, I shouldn't get married just so I can have the kids, but there's nothing wrong with looking forward to having the kids after I"m married.

I'm saying it's bad to have sex be the ONLY motivation to get married. Obviously this is bad, because in that case, what you want is not marriage, it's just sex, and you will ruin people's lives.

Pan: Do you really mean that sex has no meaning except when the couple is physically able to conceive a child? Not sure where you're getting that... I remember reading that you're a Catholic, but that's not the Catholic church teaching. Want to clarify?

Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He means using contraceptives before marriage, I think.

And by the way, pan is absolutely right. You are marrying somebody, and your reason for marrying them should be who they are and how you work with them, not wanting to have sex or thinking that sex is the most important part of your relationship.

He got a little confused when he said, "No chance for kids in my opinion means your not really bound in any meaningful way." IMO.

Again, pan, you're so obsessed with sex and reproduction that you think its the only meaningful connection between two people. Even your handle has a little double entandre in it! [Wink]


"Someone that you chose to be bound with at some level."

The bond, isn't sex, clit. The bond is spending your life with somebody, IMO. Is 'bound' a Freudian slip, though?

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sharpshin
Member
Member # 3175

 - posted      Profile for sharpshin   Email sharpshin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One of my nephews and his longtime girlfriend-- they'd been together since they were high school freshmen-- did the "save it for marriage" routine.

They were both virgins at twenty-one. His whole future was predicated on marriage to this girl, as soon as he graduated from college (the kid is brilliant). He was very close to her family and planned to go to work for her father, who owns a very successful business and is worth many millions.

His mom, one of my sisters, is about as unlike me as it's possible to get. She's a complete straight arrow. She converted long ago to her husband's Methodism. The family has deep Christian values. Same for his girlfriend's family. Both families were thrilled with their childrens' decision to wait for sexual fulfillment until the knot had been tied.

Well, as you've probably figured out by now, she got cold feet at the last minute and called the whole thing off, a month before the already planned huge and elaborate wedding last August. Seems she'd fallen in love, by her own lights anyway, with someone else. My nephew was devastated. So was his girlfriend's family. But as usual, his broken heart was not the end of the world. He started dating six months later and found someone else too.

His ex did him a favor. She was honest with him and resisted her family's pressure to be something she felt she could not be. Better before the wedding than after.

On the other hand, I know more than one pair of high school sweethearts who married early and are still happily together thirty years and several kids later. I also know a woman who was wildly promiscuous in her early twenties (a former waitress at one of my favorite pubs and no, I didn't score her even though she had a flattering crush on me and I was unattached at the time... this is one guy who will not say anything to get laid) and is now, ten years later, a faithful wife and contented mother of three.

There are no rules, not even rules of thumb, that will work for everybody. Nothing can be foreseen. All philosophies of love are personal.

[ November 29, 2006, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: sharpshin ]

Posts: 318 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TommySama, you hit the nail on the head for me(not a double entandre). I don't like any form of contraceptive.

Your right too, Carlotta. It would be better to say there are two ends that are intimately connected, the unitive and the procreative, that make marriage. The four characteristic of a marriage as far as I know are that it must be free, total, faithful and fruitful. That's marriage and it is in my opinion a bond (not that I like bondage stuff).

Sorry if I offended Funean. I should have clarified no meaningful marriage bond.

There are certainly meaningful relationships outside of marriage. That I can't deny, nor would I want to. I wouldn't say that your relationship Funean would be a marriage though, but I'm sure it's meaningful.

Marriage to me is unitive and procreative both. Additionally it must be free, total, faithful and fruitful. This is my definition of marriage and I think it works pretty good. If it doesn't have these things it's not really a marriage. It might have them implicitly, but that counts as having them.

Everything else can be as meaningful as you can think of but to me it doesn't count as a marriage. I'm fine with social contracts that allow people to enter into certain types of other bonds (not sexual by definition). I just don't like diluting my definition of marriage 'cause somebody else wants to call their relationship a marriage.

I hold that terms are more than just things to toss around and are connected to the thing itself. I think there can be layers of meaning to terms but that they should just be defined on a solely individual basis. Marriage is one of those terms that I especially don't like being wishy-washy about because it involves children.

It's a safe harbor issue for me.

[ November 29, 2006, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: PanHeraclitean ]

Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sharpshin
Member
Member # 3175

 - posted      Profile for sharpshin   Email sharpshin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pan, I personally know a young woman who, because of a childhood operation that was necessary to save her life, can never bear children. So it wouldn't even be implicit, were she to wed.

If she tied the knot, would you call it a marriage?

Posts: 318 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People point to the greater frequency of dicorce nowadays as proof that the ethos of sexual open-ness is a failure. I don't think so. It's more socially permissible now, is all. I think that many marriages that didn't end in divorce had been better off ending thus.

I also think that the perception, that nowadays you have more sexual excess, "deviance" or what have you, is just that - perception. I think that thanks to media and loosening of social taboos, you simply hear about it more.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If she's a she and he's a he than I don't see a problem with marriage. As TomD would say science might find a way to "fix" her (not in the neuter way). If it comes to sex changes and such I'd have to say you should stay with your chromosomal pattern and that chromosomal patterns manifestation.

I wouldn't say I'm fine with sexual deviance but I accept that it is present, was present and will remain in play throughout human history. I don't think that it has a right to be called marriage, though.

Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, I'm not offended. [Smile] It's not possible to take self-centered statements like "I just don't like diluting my definition of marriage 'cause somebody else wants to call their relationship a marriage" seriously enough to be offended.

You do realize that you are excluding a great many people whom the larger culture recognizes as duly, legally, legitimately and religiously married with "your" definition, as well as claiming that those who merely disagree with you are "diluting" *your* definition?

I can insist that true eclairs are chocolate, but I'm not going to tell you that your vanilla eclair isn't an eclair, nor will I further insist that your calling the vanilla eclair somehow weakens the chocolatey goodness of my True Eclair. Mind you, I do secretly think your vanilla eclair is a sucky substitute, but that's your loss. [Smile]

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
chocolatey goodness
Very Whedonesque... [Wink]
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Traditionally, the old supplants the new.

I think this is historically true of definitions of marriage.

I am NOT wlling to reenter any argument in detail regarding SSM marriage et al, but I am willing to state, emphaticaly and subjectively, that I absolutely believe that all this defense of traditional marriage from SSM et al, is only so much hysteria:

1615, from L. hystericus "of the womb," from Gk. hysterikos "of the womb, suffering in the womb," from hystera "womb" (see uterus). Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Hysterics is 1727; hysteria, abstract noun, formed 1801.

When it comes to disturbances of the womb, I prefer births best. I also prefer a womb with a view.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funean, I do recognize that SSM are duly, legally, legitimately and religiously married. I think that is because of the above dilution of what marriage means.

I'm not trying to be unfeeling, but if you make cookie without chocolate chips and call them chocolate chip cookies, wouldn't people look at you funny and say you're either trying to mislead them or yourself into believe something which is not entirely true.

Like I said, I'm fine with other forms of contracts, but marriage is a particular type of contract. Why do you believe the other types have to be defined as marriage?

I'm not saying that chocolate eclairs are the only real eclair. I'm saying chocolate eclairs are the only real chocolate eclairs.

The Romans had a lot more types of contracts than we do for this type of thing. Why don't we take a hint. Then everybody could be happy, right?

Then again maybe I'm wrong maybe all contracts between people are marriage. I mean everybody can make up their own vows now. Maybe my wife and I should have done that. Then I could just say, "you remember that vow about rubbing my back every night? Your not doing it so I want a divorce."

Those who believe that ritual is just a nice human construct misunderstand the point. It is the physical showing of a spiritual truth. My faith doesn't believe in divorce. It says that there is such a thing as annulment. Annuling is saying that the marriage contract (as I have defined it) never really was ratified by both parties. It must be shown by the partners that they didn't know those principles of marriage or didn't freely choose them. I doesn't say the two didn't share a bond, just not a marriage bond.

Think about, it if people knew what they were getting into don't you think it would relieve a lot of heartache and we'd have a lot less sleezy lawyers around too.

Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm not trying to be unfeeling, but if you make cookie without chocolate chips and call them chocolate chip cookies, wouldn't people look at you funny and say you're either trying to mislead them or yourself into believe something which is not entirely true."

Yeah, but if you bake cookies, and than afterwards, add chocolate chips on top (however many you want!) are they still not chocolate chip cookies? Only better, because you get to decide when and where and how many.


"The Romans had a lot more types of contracts than we do for this type of thing. Why don't we take a hint. Then everybody could be happy, right?"

Everybody is never happy. You know there's some guy who doesn't want there to be any contracts between anyone.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't get the extension of the analogy, TommySama. If you mean that a marriage can be initially entered into improperly and fixed during marriage, I would argee. But we still have the other needed ingredients.

And I know everyone is never happy. Who's fault is that though?

Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I figured you meant the chocolate chips were children. Which seems to be the issue. If you can enter into marriage, with a sexual relationship that does not produce progeny. But than introduce children either artificially or by adoption.


"And I know everyone is never happy. Who's fault is that though?"

I was just being a smartass [Frown]

[ November 29, 2006, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pan, your definition excludes a great many, possibly even a majority, of currently married, opposite sex couples.

That was mostly my point. [Smile]

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was too (being a smartass). [Wink]

I think artificially suppressing a natural human process is not good, yes. But the whole idea for me is that marriage is a unitive and procreative bond, both. It is a thing that most often leads to children and should lead to it because of the unitive relationship of the spouses. Sex, in this way, is the most unitive act in that it involves the whole person, body and spirit.

Why is that a bad thing, Funean. Most opposite sex marriages have ended in divorce too, as statistics now show. Anyway married couples are know the minority of the population.

[ November 29, 2006, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: PanHeraclitean ]

Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sharpshin
Member
Member # 3175

 - posted      Profile for sharpshin   Email sharpshin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, first you outline four conditions which a marriage must meet in order for it to qualify as a marriage in your view-- it must be free, total, faithful and fruitful. Even if implicity.

Arranged marriages are still quite common in much of the world, and even here. True enough, both parties may enter such a marriage freely... but others do so only under coercion in the form of familial and social pressure. Shall we then call such marriages by another name?

I don't know what you mean by "total."

I think most people who get married do so with the intention of staying faithful, though it appears that a goodly percentage don't. Does this qualification mean that if a couple reconciles after an infidelity, they are no longer married even if they don't separate? It appears not, from what you've said already. So what is the point of the qualification to begin with?

The fourth condition implies that any couple which has no intention of having children, even if legally married, is not married by your definition. Shall we then call these marriages by another name as well?

Here's what I think-- there is no reason at all to add adjectives to marriages which do not meet your conditions, or anyone else's. As long as the couple in question is legally married, they are married, period, no matter what qualifications other couples insist on in their own marriages.

Many people marry unswisely, but there is no such thing as "improperly" entering into a marriage.

Posts: 318 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh boy.

I don't think you're understanding me, Pan.

I've said nothing about surpressing a natural human process, or about sex, or even about SSM. Or that any of these things are bad or good or green with yellow polka dots.

I observed that "your" definition (always risky to have personal definitions of words currently widely in use by others; makes communication hard) of marriage seems to exclude those pairs which cannot have children.

This excludes elderly couples, couples with destroyed fertility, and couples who decide not to have children for any number of reasons (don't want 'em, both have the Tay_Sachs gene, can't afford 'em, whatever). The majority of married people, fall into at least one of these categories at various points in their marriages.

Categories which, according to your definition, render their bond "not really meaningful."

The second thing I took issue with was your notion that someone else (one of these unmeaningfully married folks, p'raps) choosing not to honor "your definition" somehow dilutes it. That's a fallacy, for one thing, and for another, when you use words in ways contrary to the prevailing usage, yup, you'll get some resistance. You're free to keep using it your way, of course; just don't be shocked if folks either don't understand you or tell you you're using the word wrong.

Back to the eclairs: you can insist that my chocolate eclair is really vanilla, but if I don't buy this, your vanilla eclair doesn't magically turn to chocolate.

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If everyone was jumping off bridges would you, Funean. My definition is not a personal definition. It is the Catholic definition as defined by 2000 years of tradition. It has been torn apart analyzed and adapted to assure the highest human dignity with the most compassion.

If people want to have problem with marriage, bioethics, divorce, unfulfilling lives, STD's population control, disorders in their children, high doctors bills, and torn psyches, that's fine with me. I can only affect change within myself.

If people were interested in knowing how hard work can lead to fulfillment, how pain is not something to be avoided at all costs, how to work on relationships with important people in their lives, how to see a bigger picture than their own personal issues, I have AN answer. I feel that when one spends the time investigating what the Church teaches instead of dismissing it as something that just doesn't fit with the times, they find that it makes a lot of sense. The Church doesn't claim to be superior. It is as broken as anything or anyone else. It does claim that in the areas of only faith and morals it is guided by the Holy Spirit. Wouldn't that be nice to believe. Just think, I don't have to reduce everything to a relativist argument. In the dictionary there are definitions. Some have common usage. That doesn't mean that it is the best way to use a word, just the most commonly used way.

I did correct the "not really meaningful" thing BTW to no meaningful marriage bond. And I cover the children thing too. I said no possibility. That would rule out SSM as a form of marriage because there is no possibility for the unitive act of sex to yield any offspring, period. All hetero marriages at least have the matter of an xx and an xy. All the rest can be adjusted by the couple. Remember I said it was possible to make the sexual act a possible child making act through scientific discovery.

Again, I'm ok with other types of contracts, bonds, relationships. They just don't fit into what marriage is. It would also cut down on divorce and such.

Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is too marriage. Is not!

Is TOO a marriage knot!

A lot of us aren't Catholics, Pan.

And I hear far too many peple appointing themselves marriage experts when they've yet to prove their ability to fulfill the basic principle of marriage:

Till death does them part.

I've figured out what is so galling about the anti-SSSM arguments: the amazing moral arrogance.

It reminds me of the horseshyte organized religion imposed on raw Xtianity, whereby organized religion replaced "where two or more of you are gathered together in my name" with "are gathered together in OUR name".

Whose heresy wins?

[ November 29, 2006, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kenmeer, point taken. This is why I play the IMO card first. It just so happens that my opinion has been formed from scrutization of the belief I see around me. The Catholic one happens to win most times because it is the most consistent to the world around me.

I'm not an evangelist, but I know many people that have converted to Catholicism because it made the most sense on the most issues after careful thought. It isn't the easiest path. I wouldn't like it if it was. That would deny the messiness of life that I see daily.

I could care less about religion. Truth is what I seek. Catholicism is where I see the highest concentration of it.

I must say, BTW Kenmeer I haven't found a way of counteracting moral relativism without having "amazing moral arrogance". Either you take a stand or you don't.

Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I must say, BTW Kenmeer I haven't found a way of counteracting moral relativism without having "amazing moral arrogance". Either you take a stand or you don't."

There is a difference between the ground YOU stand on and that on which another stands. When one is imposing one's moral opinions on the ground of another, the merit of one's moral opinion must be weighed against the inevitable de facto immorality of imposing one's moral opinion on another either prescription of proscription.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1