I attended a Wedding Ceremony this weekend for some friends of mine Johny and Jenny. She looked happy and triumphant. He had the glazed expression that all grooms seem to have. But enough joking. (joking, who was joking?)
The preacher in the ceremony made a point that I have heard before. He noted that the wedding ceremony was not for the two individuals getting married, it was for the rest of us. The ceremony was their gift to their community.
Would you agree or disagree with this point. Is the wedding ceremony more for the benefit of the community or more for the benefit of those two who are getting married?
I believe that there is some merit to this idea.
What do all of you think?
Ah yes, weddings and funerals. Almost the same thing. (you aren’t the only one with a joke!)
I suppose the minister was right, if the couple was there for the right reasons. Marriage in the best sense of the term is a complete and total committment to each other. If both of them had made that committment then the marriage ceremony was only a public announcement of the same. Additionally, each acknowledged certain obligations to one another, all in loving concern for the other. You and all other guests were there to witness and confirm public committment.
As a civil union, marriage is 5 minutes with a justice of the peace and a one line notice in the local newspaper. The church wedding ceremony is frosting on the cake and an opportunity for the bride’s parents to drop a boatload of cash.
I always get this sour taste in my mouth when someone mentions marriage. I was raised through joint-custody since I was one year of age, and this may have something to do with my distaste for the idea.
However, I can see how a strong union between two individuals could be beneficial for those in attendance and the community as well. If they are pursuing the union for the right reasons (new topic?), as JT has said already, of course.
Marriage can be a powerful union. If the setting was a small community, I believe that the positive effects could be more easily observed. It could easily be seen as a sign of good health to the community and most definately a good omen for the future, but the true test is in the years that follow, especially if there are children involved.
What’s your idea of the “right” reasons to get married?
Different cultures have different ideas about the "social contract’, so it’s probably best to ignore that as far as possible.
There is really only one reason to engage in an “ideal” marraige.
Consider: Why marry? You can hire someone to cook, wash clothes, keep the house, (even do windows!) and of course, you can buy sex (the mutual masturbation kind). So what can’t you buy that would make you want to get married?
Are you waiting for the answer with bated breath? Are you on the hook?
You cannot buy intimacy and in an ideal marraige it is the glue that hold’s everything together. That’s the one and only reason to get ‘married’.
Intimacy is badly defined in our society. Most males think that sex is intimacy. Actually sex is the result of intimacy, not the cause. Intimacy is between that one person that you can share anything and everything without fear of rejection. The person who love’s you in spite of, not because of, what they know. There are more ways to say the same thing, but you get the idea.
I think JT hit this one right on the head, as it were. And as far as I know he IS married so he has some experience on this topic, whereas I have only observations. Well, I have had some fairly long-term relationships, so I have a drop of experience.
The best romantic relationships are about intimacy, sharing and trust. Trust is the keystone. Trust bears the brunt of the pressure in a relationship. If it is strong then the relationship has a better chance of enduring. It takes work. A long-term relationship is about accepting a person, as is. Loving their features and their faults. I think patience is a close second to trust.
Two must both be equlally willing and able to both give, sacrifice and comprimsie for the sake of the relationship. Its the willingness to not have two lives, close by each other, but to share one life together.
I guess I got caught up in the romantic part of marriage. There are other parts.
Intimacy, sharing, trust. YES. About this one life part, there are stages.
It is true that I’m married. Have been since birth, or so it seem’s - and even to the same woman!
When you first get married walking down the same path, hand in hand, is the natural order of things. Other than time spent making wages, you are free to spend all of your time exploring each other and creating ‘we’ instead of me and you.
As time passes, there comes buying the house that need’s to be maintained, the first child arrives, there is club meetings, mutual friends to visit, and on and on… Eventually the child/children are in school and now parenting chores really get serious. The kids are in sports, band, and all the other extracurricular stuff. Oh, and the other chores didn’t go away so that you both could stop and play parents. At this point, the division of ‘labor’ has ‘we’ on separate paths - but you’re waving at each other.
Finally, the kids are fully cooked and out of the house. While this working, surviving, parenting has been going on you and your spouse were growing - either together or apart. If your lucky, you may even recognize one another and begin the process of discovering whether you still have anything in common. If you’re fortunate, you both find something to build on. If you think about it, you’re damn lucky to be on the same planet, let alone the same path.
Ok, I stuck a great big pin in the romantic balloon, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Yes, what is ‘romantic’ certainly changes, but if a couple really take’s time to establish intimacy in the beginning, they will romantically survive marriage. Hopefully.
To whom does the mentioned one’s trust get directed? The partner or the lord?
I can trust. But I choose to trust in the divine as opposed to my fellow men, for the benefit of them. That is, as my relationship with myself and what I do not know builds and strengthens, so may my relationships with my neighbor. This can only exist when fears have been assessed and dismantled. Loneliness cannot overtake me if I have surrendered to the One.
If one has potent trust and a confidence in a higher power, it can only help nourish a family. I feel that trust between partners must be attained through deliberation on each other’s spiritual ideas. Once a compromise is reached, if possible, then trust is secured.
I can understand a willingness to unite for reproduction, but I haven’t figured out where I stand considering sharing life, monogamy, fidelity, etc…
I’m reminded of the various animal prides who have the basic Alpha-male heirarchy and it leads me to wonder if we’ve been sedated slightly by an emphasis on traditional monogamous ‘goodness’.
If there is a good man who is fit to raise fine children, why can he not be a type of Johnny Appleseed with himself? Or an Abraham? This is supposing that the man may provide the means.
Balance is why we are here and balance is the only way to maintain.
If a person is able to provide for more than a single family, then polyandrous or polygamous practices could be implemented, provided that all parties were in mutual agreement where conditions are concerned.
This could make up for the lack of balance in many larger families that are struggling to surive. Either by bailing them out, or by building a strong family for survival even though we may have to watch other’s wither.
Back to faith though…
My faith is my life. I go to school and work because of a yearning for more. I show my faith by surrendering to the chaotic reality of it all. I could just revel in a drunken stupor and reject my conscience, but I don’t. The warrior instinct in myself urges me to play this game with a passion.
Right now, I am afforded a peaceful physical existence to contemplate the pleasantries of goodness, but there may yet be a day where I will be engrossed in violence, gore, and unabated evil. This is the day where my faith in balance would turn into a powerful, vicious, and dedicated dwarfing of this overgrown ugliness. If pride and vanity shine too bright, I am obligated to trim their ostentatious extensions, as well. However, I will never uproot these things, for my judgement is not fit for these matters.
To conclude, I pursue Balance and not Utopia and before you ask me to differentiate, I don’t think that any of you would include war in Utopia, would you?
