Tell me about MARRIAGE......
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
The promise of two people in front of God and everyone to love and commit your life to the other person.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
What BVS said. 
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
A formalized commitment and expression of love, trust, and devotion. I'd add a formalized promise of fidelity too.
That's what it should be I guess, I dunno
That's what it should be I guess, I dunno
Last edited:
BluRmGrl
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Marriage is a pact between two people to fully, totally, completely accept each other, support each other, and remain true to each other for LIFE. It shouldn't be entered into lightly and it shouldn't be held as The Answer to Life's Happiness for everyone. Marriage requires a lot of personal sacrifice - sometimes on a daily basis - and not everyone's cut out for that kind of selflessness. To borrow an old advertising campaign from the Peace Corps, marriage is the toughest job you'll ever love. 
beli
Blue Crack Addict
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Isn't that your definition of a wedding not a marriage? A wedding, to me, is the ceremony bit. A marriage, to me, is the long term commitment of two people.
sallycinnamon78
New Yorker
a life sentence.
Last edited:
dandy
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
sallycinnamon78 said:
i think i can do better, though.
i see marriage as an institution designed to uphold antiquated ideals about family and gender roles, purposely excluding everyone who doesn't fit into the status quo mold as deviant.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
beli said:
Don't you think you promise yourself, your spouse, and all those around you everyday by your actions and words? I would say a promise is commitment.
sallycinnamon78
New Yorker
dandy said:
i think i can do better, though.
i see marriage as an institution designed to uphold antiquated ideals about family and gender roles, purposely excluding everyone who doesn't fit into the status quo mold as deviant.
Now, I am sorry to say that, despite being a romantic numpty deep down (I'm secretly very soppy - welll, I guess it's not a secret now), I agree with you completely on that.
beli
Blue Crack Addict
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Don't you think you promise yourself, your spouse, and all those around you everyday by your actions and words? I would say a promise is commitment.
I was reading your statement like this:
So yeah, different interpretations. I see what you10 w 0 mean now, about actions, as well as1 words. oops BABY on keyboard alertt
o.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
No can do companero.
Marriage is -- whatever else it may be -- ultimately a symbol of the love relationship between God and his people. The part that each person plays in the relationship has been vested with unique meaning. "Male and female, He created them...and it was good." Husbands are called to lay down their lives for their wives (as God loved the church); wives to love their husbands with all that they have (as the church loves God).
IMHO, you can't divorce the subject of marriage from the symbolism it was vested with in the beginning by its Creator...
Marriage is -- whatever else it may be -- ultimately a symbol of the love relationship between God and his people. The part that each person plays in the relationship has been vested with unique meaning. "Male and female, He created them...and it was good." Husbands are called to lay down their lives for their wives (as God loved the church); wives to love their husbands with all that they have (as the church loves God).
IMHO, you can't divorce the subject of marriage from the symbolism it was vested with in the beginning by its Creator...
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Marriage is a commitment by two people who love each other to share each other's life with each other for life.
Sheltie
The Fly
sallycinnamon78 said:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
nathan1977 said:
I love how the two of you couldn't step out of the very narrow interpretation of what you think it shouldn't be and focus on what it really is given the parameters of the discussion.
I wonder if this question was asked to you before Bush made this into a conservative Christian against everyone else debate how you would have answered...
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I like how you took an honest opinion and turned it into a political polemic.
A question was asked about a definition in a context that I don't think it can be divorced from, and I said so. Why is that wrong?
And I never said what "it shouldn't be." I said what I see it as -- man and woman. Sorry if that's offensive.
A question was asked about a definition in a context that I don't think it can be divorced from, and I said so. Why is that wrong?
And I never said what "it shouldn't be." I said what I see it as -- man and woman. Sorry if that's offensive.
So do not flipping respond.....I am not looking to start yet another debate in FYM about marriage. There is more to marriage than the issue of is it between a man and a woman or a man and man or whatever.
Seriously, no one forces anyone to respond to a thread. Why would you respond if you cannot follow a simple request?
Seriously, no one forces anyone to respond to a thread. Why would you respond if you cannot follow a simple request?
[Q]Ye e e e sss....> Oh Christ....aahhh, but, Will, she's been
dead two years and that's the shit I remember.
Wonderful stuff, you know, little things like that. Ah,
but, those are the things I miss the most. The little
idiosyncrasies that only I knew about. That's what made
her my wife. Oh and she had the goods on me, too, she
knew all my little peccadillos. < People call these things
imperfections, but they're not, aw that's the good stuff. >
And then we get to choose who we let in to our weird
little worlds. [/Q]
After 16 years of dating and marriage......this is one quote that sums up how I feel about marriage.
dead two years and that's the shit I remember.
Wonderful stuff, you know, little things like that. Ah,
but, those are the things I miss the most. The little
idiosyncrasies that only I knew about. That's what made
her my wife. Oh and she had the goods on me, too, she
knew all my little peccadillos. < People call these things
imperfections, but they're not, aw that's the good stuff. >
And then we get to choose who we let in to our weird
little worlds. [/Q]
After 16 years of dating and marriage......this is one quote that sums up how I feel about marriage.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I love how the two of you couldn't step out of the very narrow interpretation of what you think it shouldn't be and focus on what it really is given the parameters of the discussion.
I wonder if this question was asked to you before Bush made this into a conservative Christian against everyone else debate how you would have answered...
Personally, I answered what it is currently, without editorializing or taking any kind political stance on it, or saying what I think it ought or ought not to be.
cardosino said:
Personally, I think you are trolling. You certainly did not respond in the spirit of my question and secondly, here in Massachusetts, your "definition" is wrong.
Again though, if that is how shallow an interpretation of marriage people have I cannot do anything about it. All I can ask is that you keep the debate over marriage out of this thread, repectfully, and focus on other more important parts of marriage. And if you can't do not respond.
beli
Blue Crack Addict
This is actually a difficult question to answer. In some cultures, marriages can involve more than one spouse. For others, a marriage may not be exclusive ie an open marriage.
Marriage is a commitment of an amount of people who may or may not choose to be sexually and/ or emotionally exclusive.
ummm, hmmmmm
marriage = love
Marriage is a commitment of an amount of people who may or may not choose to be sexually and/ or emotionally exclusive.
ummm, hmmmmm
marriage = love
Last edited:
beli
Blue Crack Addict
..... except when it doesn't eg marriages for political reasons etc
Dreadsox said:
Your opinion is noted.
Dreadsox said:
If I was in Massachusetts that might have influenced my answer.
Dreadsox said:
That is the definition as was explained to me by a friend in the legal industry (not in Massachusetts), I just changed part of the wording to meet the response parameter you set.
Dreadsox said:
You asked for a description, you got one. I'm sorry you don't like the one I gave, but when you start a thread, you will not always get answers you like. Often they will veer way off course. As this has apparently done.
Cheers
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I love how the two of you couldn't step out of the very narrow interpretation of what you think it shouldn't be and focus on what it really is given the parameters of the discussion.
I wonder if this question was asked to you before Bush made this into a conservative Christian against everyone else debate how you would have answered...
Oh, and I would have given you the same answer, as the definition here in California has not changed Pre or Post Bush.
I voted for Kerry by the way.
Prior to the 19th century, "marriage" was a business merger. A man would marry a woman and enjoy the "dowry" he could get along with it. Hence, mistresses were quite common, because you'd be married to the woman for the property/business reasons and in love with your mistress.
The idea of marriage being about "love" was instituted by leftist Protestants in the 19th century. I guess it worked for most of the Western world, because I don't see many people getting married for the dowry (there are always "golddiggers" though; watch reality TV!).
Nowadays? It's quite simple: people marry for all sorts of reasons, and no one ever asks. Ideally? It would be for love and love alone. If religion is in the way, though, it's because a lot of their theology was written in the pre-19th century mindset. "Love" was, frankly, irrelevant.
The disconnect between the past and present may be why we're in such a conflict over what "marriage" is anymore.
Melon
The idea of marriage being about "love" was instituted by leftist Protestants in the 19th century. I guess it worked for most of the Western world, because I don't see many people getting married for the dowry (there are always "golddiggers" though; watch reality TV!).
Nowadays? It's quite simple: people marry for all sorts of reasons, and no one ever asks. Ideally? It would be for love and love alone. If religion is in the way, though, it's because a lot of their theology was written in the pre-19th century mindset. "Love" was, frankly, irrelevant.
The disconnect between the past and present may be why we're in such a conflict over what "marriage" is anymore.
Melon
Do Miss America
War Child
- Princess Bride
Similar threads
