Your Views On Marriage?

[Cheri]

Damn here I am pouring my soul into this post and behind my back all this endless arguing is going on. lol Damn!

 

[Cheyenne]

I am still in a good mood, and I'd like to keep it that way.

Yup, that is exactly the point I was trying to make!

 

[Laurel]

Marriage is... marriage. In my view, that means two people (not three, not five). That's how it was designed, IMHO. However, if a couple swings, that's fine. It's their business. Not my cup of espresso, but there's no law that everyone has to live as I do, either.

I was listening to an LA radio talk show hosted by a gay male couple. The topic was homosexual marriages - they were discussing a newspaper article in which some group (GLAAD maybe, though I think it was a more smaller local organization) wanted to force the Catholic church to allow gays to marry in their churches. The hosts of the show thought this it ridiculous, and unfair. Sure, the church is backwards, but it's a private organization! It's THEIR rules! Why do you want to join a club that doesn't want you as a member? If they have a definition of marriage, who are you to try to stretch it for your own purposes?

That's how I feel about marriage. I think all states should have laws protecting same-sex partners in some way, be it through a legal marriage or whatever. But at the heart of it, marriage IS a religious union, especially if you choose to marry in a church. So if you're in Hawaii and gay and can marry legally, fine. If you're a swinging couple, fine. In the words of Sheryl Crow, if it makes you happy it can't be that bad. But to try to then claim that your actions are true to the original intent of marriage - to rewrite history to your advantage - is false.

But Fallen's right on this thread. I get annoyed when people I know start yammering away about the "decline of morals" in society. When was this Great Golden Age where everyone was honest and no one stole or robbed or cheated, when all marriages lasted till death, when we were all pure and perfect and good? Two hundred years ago our relatives OWNED SLAVES. Fifty years ago blacks couldn't vote. Women couldn't get high-paying jobs. A hundred years ago 9-year-old children worked in factories 14 hours a day for a penny. And people STILL cheated on each other, STILL lied...

If there's been change, it's been for the better. There's a growing respect for the rights of others to live THEIR lives as they see fit - to choose their own moral code to live by. Whereas my grandfather loathes gays and "niggers" and "bastard children", I accept people as people. Sure, there are still those who want to bring us backwards (how can one claim to be against government imposition on our lives, and then turn around and want to illegalize abortion? is there anything MORE intrusive than for government to tell me what I can do with MY body?), but I think for the most part society is becoming more accepting and less prejudicial.

I used to say I'd never get married. However, the subject's come up a few times lately between Manu and I, and I'm starting to think about it - not because I'm sick of "living in sin", not because I want to appease my church (as I don't belong to one, and have no wish to), but because I love Manu and intend on spending my life with him, married or not. The structure of marriage - till death do you part, two people, blah blah - suits me. And I've always wanted to wear a big white dress.

 

[Guest]

Listen, 'Goat Raping Son of a Bitch' is Patryn's nickname for me you very nasty person. Now, it may not be pretty but it's the best idea anyone's given me so far and there's no way in heck I'll let you take it..

 

[Thor's Hammer]

My shortest post. Amen, Laurel!

 

[Jeff726]

It sounds like an interesting relationship you have there, Tiggs. And that is the word I would use for it. Though you may be married, what you have is not a marriage. Sounds more to me like a hot date where you both just happen to end up in the same house at the end of the night.

I am open minded about most things, but when it comes to marriage I am a traditionalist. Marriage is meant to be a commitment..a spirtual, mental, and physical commitment between 2 people. Hell, this is the..uhh..00's, there is no reason to get married in this day and age unless you really desire to make that type of commitment. In fact, given the way the IRS takes every opportunity to fuck those of us who have gotten married and not had children in the ass at every opportunity, it seems foolish to do it for any other reason. But that's just me, that's how I see things. If you're happy doing what you do, then you should probably just tell me to fuck off and go on being happy with your life.

But I do agree with what Patryn said in her original post, and I have felt the same way about things I have seen here. I would have said something sooner, but you know how sensitive some people are. The last thing I would want to do is to upset anyone.

Simply enough, I agree Lasher. While I feel going outside of a commitment as marriage to get pleasure is very wrong and absurd, I won't judge other people who do that. It's just not for me.

Hey is the apocalypse upon us? Me and Lasher agreed on something! *rim shot*

 

[Guest]

 

[Weird Harold]

Marriage is meant to be a commitment..a spirtual, mental, and physical commitment between 2 people.

Just two people? When did this become law? Where was this idea brought about? Who made it? This wasn't a practice sent down by our forefathers...

Sometime in the 1800's, when laws against polygamy were passed to persecute the mormons.

Marriage is a legal contract between two people. Traditionally it includes a commitment to an exclusive sexual relationship and provides for the care of any children produced.

Depending on how the marriage contract is worded, (or modified by mutual verbal consent), it does not have to include a commitment to monogamy.

Historically, marriage has also meant an oath sworn before god and witnesses to abide by the definition of marriage provided by a religion as well as the civil legalities.

There are civil legal prohibitions (in the USA) against polygamy and polyandry which impose a puritanical ideal on what is considerd an acceptable marriage, along with laws against adultery derived from the same puritanical ethos.

I suppose that someone with enough money could challenge such laws on the basis of seperation of church and state, but the Mormons lost that battle when Utah was admitted to the union.

In practical terms, marriage is whatever two people agree it is. Some States, like Hawaii, have recognised this truth, and will recognise marriages between members of the same sex as being as legally binding as well as morally binding.

 

[Bliss]

Marriage as a contract between two individuals and the deity or not of their choice was sanctioned a lllllllloooooong time before the 1860's.

Even ovaheducated DCL's do it. KnowwhuttImean?

No, that doesn't make it right for everyone, and picturing Laurel with a parasol is throwing me off my game, but it is a long, time honored tradition. While that deserves no kudos in and of itself, to imply that one has never heard of such makes me wonder what planet they came from five minutes ago.

Just my 2¢.

 

[OUTSIDER]

People always want the new shiny gizmo and that applies to sex as well as all else marriage should be the ultimate in trust and most forget this

 

[Cyra_3]

I am not married and I do not have children so I do not have the same responsibilities as some of you have but I believe that if my partner had an affair with somebody I would forgive him, I love him that much.

If he wanted to see me and another woman I wold be up for it (if he wanted to see me with another man I would be up for it too), but only if that was what he wanted me to do.

He has told me that he wouldn't mind watching me with another woman but another man he wouldn't be too sure about but this is all in the future so we don't know how we would react if any of the above actually happened.

P.S I would prefer to keep him to myself.

Thank you.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Marriage as a contract between two individuals and the deity or not of their choice was sanctioned a lllllllloooooong time before the 1860's.Even ovaheducated DCL's do it. KnowwhuttImean?

Self over-educated maybe. I never finished college.

For those married who take cybering beyond fantasy, well, to each his own, but I'm wiling to bet the vast majority of those marriages weren't marriages to begin with, and won't last. Some will, every marriage is different. But most won't.



[Edited by Dixon Carter Lee on 09-11-2000 at 10:55 PM]

 

[Breastman]

If sharing a husband or a wife loses the essence of a marriage in modern society, the original idea of sharing existed even in the era of the Egyptians. Now how long ago was that ?

So sharing to do whatever - spark a marriage, enjoy sex nowadays is by no means strange, the Egyptians did it.

Unlike many wishful wives thinking that husbands are always faithful and seek no sex anywhere else, it might just be that - cause they do seek it whether you like it or not though of course they wouldn't tell you. The more they reassure you the marriage is fine and i'm not doing anything outside our marriage, the higher the possibility.

So, would you prefer him to do it behind your back or in front of you with yourself as a participant, so you both enjoy the moment - together.

 

[MADDOG]

I missed the relevent posts that you guys are talking about, but just what are we accusing Patryn of here? I don't get what's going on? This seems uncalled for.

MADDOG

 

[Bliss]

Channel 5 Action News 2000 (echo thousand thousand thousand)

Bliss Blahnik here. This just in!

People at Literotica.com are (painful screams heard in background) OH! MY! GAH! discussing their various views on HOLY! FUCKING! SHIT! matrimony and some (groan from half concious Nevah fades in) BallLess Wondah with no math skills decided to pick on the Patryn Saint's story of matrimonial hell and Internet (gasps from the crowd at Expertise's feet) Stalking.

Right after Action Sports 2000 (thousand thousand thousand) with KillerMuffNStuff we'll return you to your regularly scheduled program, As Literotica Turns.

 

[Guest]

 

[MADDOG]

Just because it is a law doesn't make it right for everyone. [/B]

Luscious, I do see your point. I would never impose my morals about monogomy on anyone but my wife (And if she was my wife she would already have my morals), but if it's not "right" to be monogomous, why get married? Why not have a "marriage" that is not a marriage in law? Shouldn't a real marriage be between 2 people? Otherwise what is the point of taking those vows?

By the way, I am not judging people who chose to go against the whole 1 on 1 marriage idea. I have some close friends here who also do not feel it's right for them. So please, noone get offended by that question/statement.

MADDOG

 

[Weird Harold]

[My point was that marriage hasn't always included just one man and woman. Biblical days recounts men having several wives and even in some Indian tribes the women have more than one husband. Just because it is a law doesn't make it right for everyone.

Unfortunately, we can't live under historical precedent. We have to live under the laws that exist int the time and place where we live.

There are places (mostly Islamic nations) where it is permitted to have as many wives as can be supported. (I don't know of anyplace that allows as many husbands as can be supported.)

I personally have no objections to multiple or group marriages. Marriage should be a contract that enhances all partners' happiness. The current laws, in any jurisdiction, anywhere, don't allow for the kind of flexibility in marriage contracts that make happiness possible for "non-traditional" marriages to exist.

The primary reason that formal marriages exist is to provide for the care and support of mothers and children. Anything beyond that basic point is up to the partners in the contract to define for themselves.

 

[Gingersnap]

I might be mistaken but I do not recall Nichole, Rosebud or Havocman asking what I thought about their realtionship. So I will keep that to myself. This thread however is what does marriage mean to you. I am a traditional in that if children are what you wish then get married and if possible stay married. It is the right of every child to be loved protected and provided for in this world. Life is gonna be rough sometimes and the point I think is to have a firm base so the first hit doesn't break your back.

I would want a marriage that didn't include other people tramping in and out. I happen to believe marriage is an attempt to attain a level of happiness that demands great concentration. I think looking around I see a lot of people in general doing the "got you now I don't have to try anymore". I would not want a love realtionship that was not exclusive and committed. I believe I have walked through fire to get to this point in my life. It took a lot of courage and work on my part to confront my rage, pain and fear. I do not want anyone in my life or heart who can not appreciate my journey. I offer that same respect and appreciation to the man that I love.

My gramps taught me what it was to love with your heart and soul. He was a simple man who was a master at one very important thing. He loved me and he loved my grandmom. Without that example of love in my life I would have done myself in at fifteen. That is what I respect about committed realationships they can change the world one person at a time.