I agree with you.

LB

Love at first sight is easy to understand; it's when two people have been looking at each other for a lifetime that it becomes a miracle.     Amy Bloom

I think that in a committed relationship, your partner is your best friend ( married or not)

Hi, Emmalong -- marriage means different things to different people.  I agree with you that commitment is key.  For me, marriage also involved covenant -- making promises to reinforce our commitment, that involved God and our community of family and friends.  The legal stuff I couldn't really care less about, but we did that stuff too (legal marriage gives you rights you can't get until you have been living together for at least six months)...  One of my best friends has been in a long-term commited relationship and they are raising two kids together -- very positive, healthy relationship and good home.  I wouldn't see any discernable difference between their relationship and mine with my partner, except that my partner and I are committed Christians and chose to covenant.

shalom!

Traditionally, 1 Man + 1 Woman + God = Marriage.

But times they are a' changing...

IMO there's no point in opposing same-sex unions because any effort to do so would be in vain. The door has been opened, and there's no closing it now. Since it involves the indomitable human spirit, gay marriage and indeed gay rights in general is like an oncoming avalanche or tsunami ... an irrestible force. But will the oppressed become the oppressors? I'm worried about just how far the Rainbow Revolution will go.

Yeah, I'm worried too.  What it starts to be the law that I have to wear mesh shirts and wax my chest hair?

I think you have some pretty good points Emma. Obviously from a legal standpoint I think everyone should have equal protection under the law and equal rights but at it's heart marriage is more about love, committment, etc., all those great intangibles.

I told her that I believe in commitment.  Because, to me, marriage means nothing without commitment.  Alternately, commitment can mean something without marriage.

I think that's the answer right there

A piece of paper and a parade is just for showing the world a milestone in your life but its it happy on the outside and miserable on the inside ?

It's about as silly as wearing a white dress , when you've been dating for months (wink wink)

Marriage: A lifelong covenant between one man and one woman.

Marriage: Something which holds significance in revealing aspects of God's character. Something which holds significance in revealing God's relationship to humanity. Marriage mirrors God's faithful devotion to his church and his church's singular devotion to him.

Marriage: A powerful support for the procreative relationship that exists only between a man and a woman.

Marriage: The foundation for family and community life.

Just as an aside, most people don't realize that common-law marriages were actually instituted by the church.

Really? I didn't know that. Can you provide more info?

Jae, I'm not being argumentative here but when I read what you wrote this definition will exclude a lot of people from the marriage process - which I am acknowledging is probably not your intent.

If you make marriage about procreation then for those men and women who because of biology can not do so - what then of their marriages?

I know that you will then point to the convental relationship with God, but again this excludes those that do not believe in such a God.

Marriage gets tangled up in the civil laws of the country - whereby those not "joined together in lawful union" are deprived of property protections and such mundane, but profane, rights of hospital visitations. 

Marriage gets tangled up in social conventions - whereby those not joined blah blah are looked down upon, their morality questioned and they are treated as less than their "lawfully" joined counterparts.

With all these factors I think that the definition of marriage must be broad so that it encompasses all those who desire to share their lives in love and fidelity.

LB

Is not marriage an open question, when it is alleged, from the beginning of the world, that such as are in the institution wish to get out, and such as are out wish to get in?     Ralph Waldo Emerson

In early medieval Europe, marriage as considered valid by declaration. In other words, if the parties involved declared themselves married, even in the abscence of witnesses, they were considered married. Without witnesses it was considered "clandestine marriage" or "marriage by habit and repute", but was held to be legal marriage by the Church, who held jurisdiction over marriage, by virtue of canon law.

In 1563, at the council of Trent, the RCC ruled that henceforth only thos marriages presided ovfer by RCC clergy would be considered a valid marriage in all Christendom. This, of course created problems for non-Christians, such as Jews, who either had to have a Christian wedding, or not be viewed as being legally married. Keep in mind that at the time, an unmarried couple could be jailed or killed for living together, renting a room, or even becoming pregnant.

In 1753, in the UK, a similar legislation, called "The Marriage Act" prescribed the same conditions, but this time ruled the Church of England as the presiding body. Non-Christians werestill out of luck, but now Catholics, like those in Ireland for instance, were also now forced to have their marriages presided over by a preist of a fatih that was foreign to them.

In both cases the solution was to institute a class of lesser marriage known as "common-law". Common Law marriages allowed non-Christian, or non-RCC/COE (depending) couples to legally cohabitate, buy property, travel, and raise families. Common-law marriages were considered barely legal, but necessary to keep people from "living in sin". Of course non-Christians (or wrong Christians if you weren't of the current ruling sect) were already sinfull and crass in society anyways, by virtue of not being "right with God (read not a member of the right church)", but at least this way you didn't have to slaughter the Jewish family down the street.

In the new world, the situation arose where in small frontier settlements, years may go by without a visit by ordained clergy. Common-Law marriages were the obvious solution, and so were retained as legal, in the eyes of both RCC and COE, even well after most European countries abolished them.

I don't make marriage about just procreation. I realize that there is more to marriage than that. However, I believe marriage at its best does include procreation. I in no way, however, mean to invalidate marriages in which procreation cannot or does not take place. My own brother and his wife have decided not to have children. There's no medical reason why they cannot, they have just decided that doing so would not be a good match their lifestyle.

God created marriage, I believe, for most of those who do not believe in him and for most of those who do. I also believe he created some people with the desire that they remain single (Jesus and the apostle Paul being two prime examples). However, I do believe that marriage at its best is a commitment between three persons: two human beings, and God.

An interesting definition which I do not share.

Greetings!

How does one "bring their relationship to God"?  For those you don't consider married because they have not brought their relationship to God - how do you know whether or not they have or have not?

Hope, peace, joy, love . . .

Well, let's be clear (and honest and accurate) here... if you had said "FOR ME", I wouldn't have even bothered replying since that would have been your view about you.  But very obviously contrary to your assertion in your last post, you said "TO ME", which implies your view about you and everyone else.   So my questions were how you viewed my wife and my kids.  But fair enough, if you meant "for you", there's no question to even ask.

Gee, I said that if you meant FOR YOU (clearly NOT what you said), there's no question to even ask.  Does that sound "up in arms" to you?  And you tell me to "relax already"?   Try it yourself.  Note that I wasn't the only one to read what you actually said.  Try admitting that t'was very clearly you that messed up... though never admit it to anyone other than yourself (lol).

And do you really want me to answer why a theistic opinion about me matters to me?

communion of two people, sheltered in love, strengthened by mutual respect. with or without  the certificate. and everyday, celebrate your union by living wholly within the commitments each has agreed upon. enjoy each other's presence, and above all else, care for each other.  (and live lustily ;)

Sociologically speaking, gays will oppress straight people when, and only when, gays become the majority group in society. That's certainly never happened in North America, and I personally doubt that it ever will. Until that time, it's the straights who will remain the oppressors.

Does this mean that "sociologically speaking", Christians (one majority group in Canadian society) oppress atheists and other non-Christians now?  I'm not taking a stand one way or t'other - it just seems to logically follow from your unequivocal assertion about gays.

Just as well you two aren't married! 

What is marriage? Is it a legal contract, a religious sacrement? Is it a public declaration of a union?  Is it the foundations of a family? All good questions.  I used to think marriage was the foundation of a family.  I believed it was my goal to leave my family and create a new one out of CHOICE.  I believed I had a responsibility to create the culture I was raised in for my prospective children and with my mate.  I tried, and I tried and I tried.  I failed and I failed and I failed.  So, I think I have something to offer to this discussion. I examined how some of my friends or co-workers were in arranged marriages, common-law marriages, and no marriage at all, and some of my friends are straight and some are gay.  I think traditional marriage has to be both legal and religious, because it is a lifestyle set up to support a family, and something has to keep those two people together when the love goes out the window.  A promise is a good place to start.

I believe that gay couples feel as committed and capable of raising children as do their straight counterparts, and I believe God through Jesus loves all people, not just heterosexual people, but, and I do have one...I think because they are 2 different kinds of marriage, they should have different names, but the same legal rights.  I do not know why gay couples want the same marriage problems heteros have.  I think they had it right all along, and that heteros should give up the craziness.  But, mostly I believe to each their own.  If you are lucky enough to find someone  you can  agree to spend the rest of your lives with  - do it but it is harder than many lovestruck people gay or straight can imagine.  It takes 2 people at the same level of committment, and that is as rare as a $3 bill.

I personally feel that humans need more than one person to get them through life.  I believe this on many levels, emotionally, physically, and spiritually, and so if we are truly honest with ourselves we would not try to make promises we can not keep.  One of the hardest things to learn for a female who believes the fairytale is learning that there really is NOT someone for everyone.  Sometimes men get married just for something to do, or for children, or for the image of respect.

I think if men truly believed their committment to their family is a mirror of God's committment to the church, maybe there would not be so much domestic violence, divorce, and abuse in families.  I believe if marriage was so important, Jesus would have married, but we are to believe he did not. 

I guess in summary, I love the hope and ideals that go with marriage, but I could not pick a man who I could weather the reality of marriage with, or maybe they could not weather it with me.  I tried so hard to be a family person.  It was all I wanted in life, and yet it was not to be. Am I supposed to believe that God does not find me worthy to be a member of his church?  Does he not want to reveal aspects of his character to me? And if not? Why not?  Because I have these questions, I believe marriage is a construct of man, not of God.  There where no priests in the garden of Eden.  When God brings to people together in mutual love, respect and committment, I believe there is a covenant that no human being can sanctify, nor discredit.  It is a beautiful gift.  It is a great opportunity to grow.