Didn't make sense that I gave you any grief about it. My local Hindu temple has a picture of Jesus in it, they value him as a guru. My preacher quotes occasionally from the Gita, Yogananda, and Star Trek.
All the same, it's what he said.
This is the main reason the Catholic Church cannot condone divorce. Interpretations of Christ's words, even by St Paul, are open to wiggle-room. But the words of Christ are not. The church cannot teach anything directly in conflict with the words of Christ himself.
In the states I've known people that had annulments after 4 years of marriage...to avoid the issue and stay in church.
Also @wil there's no question about not being allowed to attend church. There are no bouncers at the door. It means that because the church is unable to absolve you (until death you do part) you should be conscience bound not to take communion. But there's no priest who would actually refuse it, and no-one will ever look at you funny ...
Last edited:
In my opinion, as I've said before, I would greatly restrict the availability of a Sacramental Marriage, that is, marriage vows that are non-negotiable.
+++
A proper (English) wedding
It's not commonly known that 'a white wedding' is hardly traditional. It emerged in Victorian times, and the point was to show that the lady in question was rich enough to have a dress made for a one-time use. The 'symbol of virginity' thing was a cover-up. Really, it was to flaunt your wealth before others.
Before the Victorian era, brides simply wore their best gown, which was unlikely to be white and was expected to do many years' service.
When the state started taxing marriage in the 1690s, a vicar carried out a survey of his parishioners. Clergymen who failed to ensure that their parishioners were officially married were penalised. He discovered that half of them had not been married in church, but in their home, by a travelling clergyman, or simply made vows to each other.
Those unencumbered by property preferred to avoid the tax and spend their money on a celebration. Such "common law unions" had no basis in law and did not carry property rights.
In the wake of the First World War, the number of 'common law wives' applying for their partner's pay and pension brought the matter into light.
Originally, marriage was at the church porch. Only the local dignitaries warranted the altar. Such marriages were then entered in the diocese records and thereby forestalled later disputes over property and inheritance. The marriages were public, and publicly celebrated, to ensure the maximum number of witnesses.
Clandestine or Common Law marriage was illicit, but still valid in the eyes of the Church.
But such marriages led to all sorts of abuses – kidnapping, drugging, forced marriage and rape by fortune hunters; or under-age, same-sex, incestuous or bigamous unions. Bigamy was common. It was all too easy to enter a CL marriage, gamble your wife's fortune away, leave her destitute, and walk away to find another victim.
The same casual attitude applied to sexual morality. Upper-class marriages involved property and meant that an unmarried girl's chastity had to be guarded at all costs. But chastity mattered less to others. From the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, when Victorian notions began to hold sway, a surprisingly high proportion of English brides were pregnant on their wedding day. Pre-marital sex was a sort of fertility test and pregnancy did not so much precipitate as anticipate the wedding.
In the 1950s, a Royal Commission identified as the single most important factor in marital breakdown the idealisation of the individual pursuit of sexual gratification and personal pleasure at the expense of a sense of reciprocal obligations and duties towards spouses, children and society as a whole.
The idea of marriage being based on solely on romantic love/lust is quite modern. The norm was more practical and pragmatic foundations.
+++
My solution:
People today want 'a white wedding' for the same reason as the Victorians. To show off. So dispense with all that as anything to do with tradition, purity, virginity, whatever ...
Marriage in the eyes of the Church will be two-tier (although the same in the eyes of the law).
'Common' marriage will be blessed by a priest. A union between two people which all hope will last but, if it doesn't, then hey-ho, they gave it their best shot. Annulment/divorce is quite simple, and probably the post-nup agreement will be the most complex.
'Sacramental marriage' is something else altogether. It's non-negotiable, and not easy to attain.
+++
A proper (English) wedding
It's not commonly known that 'a white wedding' is hardly traditional. It emerged in Victorian times, and the point was to show that the lady in question was rich enough to have a dress made for a one-time use. The 'symbol of virginity' thing was a cover-up. Really, it was to flaunt your wealth before others.
Before the Victorian era, brides simply wore their best gown, which was unlikely to be white and was expected to do many years' service.
When the state started taxing marriage in the 1690s, a vicar carried out a survey of his parishioners. Clergymen who failed to ensure that their parishioners were officially married were penalised. He discovered that half of them had not been married in church, but in their home, by a travelling clergyman, or simply made vows to each other.
Those unencumbered by property preferred to avoid the tax and spend their money on a celebration. Such "common law unions" had no basis in law and did not carry property rights.
In the wake of the First World War, the number of 'common law wives' applying for their partner's pay and pension brought the matter into light.
Originally, marriage was at the church porch. Only the local dignitaries warranted the altar. Such marriages were then entered in the diocese records and thereby forestalled later disputes over property and inheritance. The marriages were public, and publicly celebrated, to ensure the maximum number of witnesses.
Clandestine or Common Law marriage was illicit, but still valid in the eyes of the Church.
But such marriages led to all sorts of abuses – kidnapping, drugging, forced marriage and rape by fortune hunters; or under-age, same-sex, incestuous or bigamous unions. Bigamy was common. It was all too easy to enter a CL marriage, gamble your wife's fortune away, leave her destitute, and walk away to find another victim.
The same casual attitude applied to sexual morality. Upper-class marriages involved property and meant that an unmarried girl's chastity had to be guarded at all costs. But chastity mattered less to others. From the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, when Victorian notions began to hold sway, a surprisingly high proportion of English brides were pregnant on their wedding day. Pre-marital sex was a sort of fertility test and pregnancy did not so much precipitate as anticipate the wedding.
In the 1950s, a Royal Commission identified as the single most important factor in marital breakdown the idealisation of the individual pursuit of sexual gratification and personal pleasure at the expense of a sense of reciprocal obligations and duties towards spouses, children and society as a whole.
The idea of marriage being based on solely on romantic love/lust is quite modern. The norm was more practical and pragmatic foundations.
+++
My solution:
People today want 'a white wedding' for the same reason as the Victorians. To show off. So dispense with all that as anything to do with tradition, purity, virginity, whatever ...
Marriage in the eyes of the Church will be two-tier (although the same in the eyes of the law).
'Common' marriage will be blessed by a priest. A union between two people which all hope will last but, if it doesn't, then hey-ho, they gave it their best shot. Annulment/divorce is quite simple, and probably the post-nup agreement will be the most complex.
'Sacramental marriage' is something else altogether. It's non-negotiable, and not easy to attain.
My wife was quite puzzled that 'White' should be the symbol of purity here as in her culture it's an expression of mourning. Common practice is for widows to wear only white for at least a year after their husband's passing. In Hinduism, at least in my wife's tradition, brides are dressed in 'Red' as a symbol of virginity. Makes sense if you think about it.
One of my brother-in-law's had a western style 3-tier cake at his reception, complete with bride & groom wedding topper. I can still remember the ladies rushing to paint over the bride figure's white gown with red fingernail polish before anyone saw it.
stellaluna
Member
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 3
I once caused quite a stir on another forum when I put forth my views of marriage, which I happen to think are rather benign, but let me try them out here.
I think what the American Protestant church considers the most "Godly" or "biblical" marriage I argue is only one of many. The bible gives us various models of polyamory, an unfortunate number of "women as property" models, and yes, in the NT, the idea of a marriage made up of one man and one woman, specifically for those in positions of church authority.
I think in the U.S., the Protestant church has confused civil marriage with religious covenant. In other words, if you have a government-issued marriage license and your marriage conforms to the law, you have satisfied the requirements for the religious covenant of marriage--regardless of the man and woman (always one man and one woman) involved.
I'm not sure why anyone cares whether anyone else is formally married or has an alternative arrangement. Inasmuch as a civil marriage gives legal benefits to the couple, I think anyone who wants to obtain a civil marriage should be allowed to. I think to satisfy religious requirements, churches can decide how to handle ceremonies for their members.
I think what the American Protestant church considers the most "Godly" or "biblical" marriage I argue is only one of many. The bible gives us various models of polyamory, an unfortunate number of "women as property" models, and yes, in the NT, the idea of a marriage made up of one man and one woman, specifically for those in positions of church authority.
I think in the U.S., the Protestant church has confused civil marriage with religious covenant. In other words, if you have a government-issued marriage license and your marriage conforms to the law, you have satisfied the requirements for the religious covenant of marriage--regardless of the man and woman (always one man and one woman) involved.
I'm not sure why anyone cares whether anyone else is formally married or has an alternative arrangement. Inasmuch as a civil marriage gives legal benefits to the couple, I think anyone who wants to obtain a civil marriage should be allowed to. I think to satisfy religious requirements, churches can decide how to handle ceremonies for their members.
We seem to have a need to know what others do in their private lives and then judge them for it.
I believe in general what consenting adults choose to do in private is none of my business.
I believe in general what consenting adults choose to do in private is none of my business.
how consenting adults express their sexuality in private doesn't affect me.
Unless.they are making bombs or hacking my bank account at the same time...even then...the sex act is not the issue.
Then they already have those diseases, and unless I am in their bedroom, again, not my business.
How does somebody else getting food poisoning from consensual sex (?) affect me?
Some forms of food poisoning are also STDs (hepatitis is one where it is both an STD and food poisoning [I'd confirm it with my sister's brother-in-law, but he passed away over a decade ago from complications attributed to hepatitis that he contracted through a tainted sandwich].)
Poor hygiene also contributes to food poisoning, too.
Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
Poor hygiene also contributes to food poisoning, too.
Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine