Marriage? Yes? No? Why?

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I know that there have been a few threads on sex before marriage, but this thread is more absolute, is marriage required at all?


In about an hour I am going out to take part in a wedding rehearsal. The groom is a very old friend of mine and I am to be an usher at the ceremony (which I think means that I get to boss people around and wear a cool (actually very hot) suit.

Although I am honoured to be part of this service and I would of course never do anything to spoil their day, I have always been personally opposed to the idea of marriage.

My opposition is not to monogamy, I think that is a great idea, but I have always felt that my choice of partner is not subject to the acceptance or rejection of any church or state.

As a buddhist I know that although marriage is traditional in pretty much every buddhist culture, there is no specific marriage ceremony which must be performed.

I would like to know how people of other faiths view marriage, is it a requirement and why?

I would also especially like to know if there are any branches of monotheistic religions which do not require marriage.

 

[shunammite]

I think people need all the help they can get to stand by each other when the going gets tough...

Someone who knows everything about you and sticks with you, all your life...mom and dad die, your children leave home...it's terrible without a real companion.

But in practice I admit marriage can be pretty uncompanionable. However I think that too is important, it's like wrestling with an adversary, not the same as a regular enemy, it was someone you once loved dearly.

To me...if I leave my husband...it's like giving God permission to leave me...I will never leave thee nor forsake thee...I think we ought to be pledged to all people in love really but marriage gives you a chance to perfect your skills. It's kind of a dirty trick, when you are young your exact opposite is so delightful but under the strain of life they can be REALLY ANNOYING.

I don't know of any religion that doesn't "require" marriage...religion means bondage...the point of it is to help hold society together..

 

[Saponification]

Awaiting has just pointed out one - Buddhism. Marriage isn't such a big deal in Buddhism. Certain Buddhist cultures might have their ceremonies, but culture is different to religion - Buddhism just happens to adopt a lot of cultural stuff when it moves from place to place.

Certain religions say that things like sex should only be enjoyed inside marriage, but again in Buddhism it's a non-issue: sex in marriage is the same as sex outside of marriage.

 

[arthra]

In the Baha'i Faith the institution of marriage is very important...We also require in Baha'i marraiges that the living parents of the prospective spouses approve the marriage so this forms a strong support for the marriage.

And sex outside of marriage is forbidden.

This sets an example for children to follow morality as they mature and sets a standard for their future relationships.

The family is the building block of society and establishes the foundation for peace... If the families are not strong...the neighboring community is also at loose ends. If the neighborhood and village are upset it affects the city and so on.

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

We also require in Baha'i marraiges that the living parents of the prospective spouses approve the marriage

While I understand the reason I must say that this seems very harsh to me. What if you meet someone you love and you are certain that you want to spend the rest of your life with this person but your parents don't like him/her? Would a baha'i priest (dont know what the correct term is, sorry) refuse to perform the ceremony?

 

[arthra]

While I understand the reason I must say that this seems very harsh to me. What if you meet someone you love and you are certain that you want to spend the rest of your life with this person but your parents don't like him/her? Would a baha'i priest (dont know what the correct term is, sorry) refuse to perform the ceremony?

My reply:

What may seem "harsh" to you is probably because of your perspective and where you live... If we truly want to build a peaceful society the whims of infatuation and what you feel "you (really) want to spend the rest of your life with.." may have to be sacrificed.

What occurs nowadays is instant animosity when parents' are ignored, flouted and dismissed... this weakens the social fabric and creates the proverbial mother-in-law at war with the new bride... the battle begins adding yet another factor weakening our social fabric and the family becomes less capable of supporting itself.

Anyway there are no Baha'i priests or clerics. Our Faith is democratically administered from the local level on up..so our institutions determine if the requirements are met. I can tell you from my own personal experience that a Baha'i marriage has incredible strengths that are not found in many other families. The bonding and support from the extended family is still present and an ally.

In friendship,

- Art

 

[lunamoth]

Hello Art,

But I recently learned that children do not need to ask permission of their adoptive parents. The way you portray the reason for this law, it really sends a rather insensitive message to adoptive parents. I raise my daughters from infancy to adulthood and yet they would be encouraged, actually instructed, to do what they can to get permission from birth parents instead.

I agree that family harmony is paramount and most desirable for strong marriages and societies. But I see this law as hurtful and insulting to adoptive parents and an example of putting the letter of the law above compassion.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[arthra]

Hello Art,

But I recently learned that children do not need to ask permission of their adoptive parents. The way you portray the reason for this law, it really sends a rather insensitive message to adoptive parents. I raise my daughters from infancy to adulthood and yet they would be encouraged, actually instructed, to do what they can to get permission from birth parents instead.

I agree that family harmony is paramount and most desirable for strong marriages and societies. But I see this law as hurtful and insulting to adoptive parents and an example of putting the letter of the law above compassion.

peace,
lunamoth

My reply:

Thanks for your post Lunamoth...

Let me use a personal example so you may come to perhaps understand better.

I adopted my son when he was ten years old and he was raised as a Baha'i. He later met a Christian woman and my wife and I were not involved in granting permission. He attempted to contact his birth mother and his father was unknown.

His fiance's parents were deceased.

So the Assembly reviewing his situation approved the marriage.

Being a Baha'i my son asked our permission anyway even though it wasn't required and we approved.

So as his adoptive parents we do not feel this law is in any way hurtful or insulting.

He and his wife and family still receive our support and love even though he was adopted.

Laws are now changing in many countries granting more contact between birth parents and their natural children and i think this is actually a good idea as it closes the gaps and lessens the anxiety and can improve the self worth of the children.

- Art

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Art,

Thank you for sharing your story Art, and I have no doubt that my daughters would treat me with respect too when it comes to their marriages, not that I expect them to require my permission. I hope by the time they are old enough to marry (and my five year old is already saying she's not ever going to marry ) I will have encouraged enough good values that this is internal for them. But, I think there probably can be times when getting the birth parents involved like this actually could lead to some pretty difficult situations, rather than building family harmony.

For example, the birth mother might want to stay involved with her bio child, and perhaps does through the increasingly more common open adoptions, but she might also have personal issues such as addictions and psychological problems, or perhaps even been involved in abuse of the child. I know of more than a few such cases. Were the birth parent to suddenly have more "clout" than the adoptive parents in such a case, I can easily see this leading to ill will among family members.

If we raise our children to respect and honor parents (primarily by loving the stuffing out of them ), why do we need a law to create family harmony? And if the law is not needed in adoptive families, why is it needed for any other kind of family?

peace,
lunamoth

 

[arthra]

lunamoth wrote:

If we raise our children to respect and honor parents (primarily by loving the stuffing out of them ), why do we need a law to create family harmony? And if the law is not needed in adoptive families, why is it needed for any other kind of family?

My reply:

I think there is truth in what you say...and i can agree with you, but the reality is though there are many laws developed regarding marriages, inheritances and adoptions, parental support and so on AND they will vary depending on where you live...

The sad fact remains that the family in many modern societies is nearing extinction as a viable institution so we owe to future generations to lay the foundations for greater harmony and one way to do this is through divine laws and institutions in my opinion.

-Art

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

What may seem "harsh" to you is probably because of your perspective and where you live... If we truly want to build a peaceful society the whims of infatuation and what you feel "you (really) want to spend the rest of your life with.." may have to be sacrificed.

This seems to be an instance on that age old conflict between the individual and the society. I think this is a very important debate today no matter which side you choose. Personally I agree with the great playwrite Henrik Ibsen, who said,

"The State is the curse of the individual. . .

The State must go! That will be a revolution which will
find me on its side.

Undermine the idea of the State, set up in its place spontaneous
action, and the idea that spiritual relationship is the only
thing that makes for unity, and you will start the elements of a
liberty which will be something worth possessing."

 

[arthra]

Harmony needed between individual and society:

Awaiting the Fifth wrote:

This seems to be an instance on that age old conflict between the individual and the society. I think this is a very important debate today no matter which side you choose.

Reply:

I don't think it needs to be a "conflict between the individual and the society" though... but a harmony between the individual and society so that the needs of both are filled. When the society is stable and the family united it will provide more for itself, and a proper environment for the individuals that compose it.

As far Ibsen though:

"Undermine the idea of the State, set up in its place spontaneous
action, and the idea that spiritual relationship is the only
thing that makes for unity, and you will start the elements of a
liberty which will be something worth possessing."

To me he was being naive (perhaps a bit anarchic) and depending too much on "spontaneous action" as a salve... We need a balance and harmony between the individual and the state.

Two things come to mind...

There is the trend weakening families that are in mobile more urban settings ...where the extended family is breaking down and you see this in Europe and America.

These laws are Baha'i laws for Baha'is but there are say a hundred thousand Baha'i communities all over the world in settings from Nepal to Senegal to Bolivia... the traditional culture is built more on the extended families, then you have the urban more mobile type families in large cities and here the family tends to be more nuclear and even that is breaking down further from the traditional model...so a balance needs to occur in our view.

You provide something to the living parents that can strengthen the extended family and you acknowledge the new family as well.

- Art

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Re: Harmony needed between individual and society:

I don't think it needs to be a "conflict between the individual and the society" though... but a harmony between the individual and society so that the needs of both are filled.

Abd so a Baha'i teaches a Buddhist about the middle way.

You are right of course.

 

[arthra]

Re: Harmony needed between individual and society:

Abd so a Baha'i teaches a Buddhist about the middle way.

You are right of course.

We Baha'is know this teaching of the "Middle Way" as moderatrion in all things:

"In all matters moderation is desirable. If a thing is carried to excess, it will prove a source of evil" (TB 69)

And

"It is incumbent upon them who are in authority to exercise moderation in all things. Whatsoever passeth beyond the limits of moderation will cease to exert a beneficial influence. Consider for instance such things as liberty, civilization and the like. However much men of understanding may favourably regard them, they will, if carried to excess, exercise a pernicious influence upon men."