jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (08/14/85)
> > Maybe you haven't gotten hurt yet, but I tend to doubt that. Everybody gets > > hurt, eventually, from intimate relationships that don't last. And often > > the things that hurt are actually done to us so that we will hurt. If you > > haven't been hurt, then maybe you've been doing all the lashing out. At > > some point it always comes down to the same thing. Relationships end and > > people get hurt. Marriage, on the other hand, when done with the right > > reasons with the right two people, should not end..until death do you > > part. Chew on that for a while. > "Should" not end? Hmmm... No matter. I'm being honest. The fact is many do. Even Christian marriages. But on the whole, not as many as people think. > Is there something wrong with "getting > hurt"? Must we always seek the ultimate protective sure-thing environment? Isn't that what your "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" morality is all about? Even if the discussion has another heading, your still Rich Rosen, aren't you? With the non-infringement policy? > Why? In doing so, in fact, in seeking the unattainable "perfect lifetime > relationship with a person living up to YOUR expectations", you are > predestined to fail. (That much of determinism is a surefire reality!) I guess we'll see about that. I'll let you know at the divorce court, that is, if I ever get married. >> The sexual life style is not all as glamorous as you make it out to be. > The married lifestyle is not all as glamorous as you make it out to be. Unquestionably true. Marriage is not glamorous. It just helps to make a workable family unit. >> Those things you say you want to do are filling some emptiness (need) >> inside of you. God fills it too, if you let Him. > Those things you say you want to do are filling some emptiness (need) > inside of you. Freedom of thought and action do that too, if you let them. Freedom of thought and action are there with or without *belief* in God. The choice is always there, it is never taken away. I choose daily whether to believe God or not. When I choose not, it is more fatal then when I choose to believe. But that's only personal experience. >> And without the hurt >> that numerous intimate relationships wind up inflicting on everybody >> involved. > And without the hurt that the intimacy of a single longterm relationship > of commitment to a particular person winds inflicting on EVERYBODY involved. The analogy here is that marriage is the ultimate fullfillment. Never said it was. I said God is. Marriage is just better, but only when it works. When a Christian waits for God to make the choice, it works. I can't speak for the general populace. >> And if not the mental anguish...what about the physical diseases >> going around. Fool around with the wrong person these days and you may not >> be around to tell the story a couple of years from now or so. > And if not the mental anguish...what about the high incidence of marital > violence and abuse perpetrated by people who expect and demand certain things > from a marriage. Unfortunately, this point concerns people's judgement. You can't judge a person as having VD or AIDS by his appearance. One night stands don't allow you the luxury of finding out about a person. You can only HOPE that you find someone honest enough to say. The same cannot be said for longer lasting relationships when there is a mutual agreement of fidelity between the partners. If this agreement is not established, then the case is the similar to the one above. The only exception here is that the infidelity can be consistent allowing for several similar long lasting relationships. Eventually, you get back to the risky case. > Marry the wrong person these days and you may not be around > to tell the story a couple of years from now or so. If a person marries someone who physically abuses them, that is either bad judgement or the person was fooled. Unfortunately, in most cases, it is bad judgement. The case of being fooled can happen to anyone in in any situation. God may reveal a little extra information to you, however, that is not publicly availabe. > See how easy it is to make crass generalizations about a lifestyle? Yeah. I'm getting good at it. > > And if there is love, true love...why not marriage. > And the more important question: if there is love, why MUST there be > marriage? Way back when, marriage was established by the sexual act, but the commitment was more serious. The marriage paper does not constitute the marriage. It is the vow that the people are making. God suggests one mate. He does that from experience. Christians are obedient to God for reasons of Love and experience. You can still do what you like. > If you're talking about expectations, don't leave out marriage. More people > get married with unvoiced preconceptions and expectations of what the other > partner is "supposed" to be (it worked like this in my parents' family, > the Bible says that a spouse is supposed to do this...) than we could care > to count. And more of THEM wind up either in divorce or bitter twisted > marriages as a result. Tell me, Rich, how many marriages as compared with how many broken relation- ships? Obviously, uncountably more relationships than marriages. Many more relationships end than proceed to marriage. Thus, many more relationships are entered with those preconceptions and expectations. It happens no matter what because that's the nature of people. Maybe many of those marriages that you're talking about would have never happened if it hadn't been the initial intimacy of sex. >>>Working from assumptions again. Since you have no >>>experience with such "solemn trust" in the context you mention, you are in >>>no position to judge. I'm sure many married Christians might support Jeff's >>>view, but the fact that others may not, and that married and unmarried non- >>>Christians can offer a completely different perspective shows that the >>>blanket classification that this is ONLY right in marriage is bogus. [RR] >> If your not Christian, nobody's telling you to change your way of life. If >> you become Christian, it's just a matter of time before you will, with God's >> help. > I'm not sure what on earth this has to do with my statement above. Christians > have no monopoly on proper perspective about things like marriage, though > your assertions in your article make it appear that you feel that you do. Okay. I am playing both sides of the fence a bit. But that's just me and my impressions. Other Christians have other impressions. I personally decided that frivolous sex was not fullfilling sometime before I became a Christian. But that's me. Some do it because they love God and want to obey, some because of similar reasons as I have expressed. Most, I think (purely speculation and assumption), do it for a combination of reasons. Many don't bother to obey until after they have established their marital relationship. They are still Christian. I can't judge, it's not my place. > My point was that Jeff need not listen only to the Christian perspective on > requirements about marriage, that (as shown above) a lot of assumptions are > made within it. I doubt that he wants to hear anything but that perspective, > but that's his business, and his problem. I'm just offering a different > perspective from a different and perhaps less biased vantage point. You're right. Jeff need not listen only to the Christian perspective. But he's Christian and he is more likely to do so; not only because others say it is better, but because he has a worthwhile relationship with God that he values. > Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. I'm still curious. Julie A. Harazduk
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/18/85)
>>> Maybe you haven't gotten hurt yet, but I tend to doubt that. Everybody gets >>> hurt, eventually, from intimate relationships that don't last. And often >>> the things that hurt are actually done to us so that we will hurt. If you >>> haven't been hurt, then maybe you've been doing all the lashing out. At >>> some point it always comes down to the same thing. Relationships end and >>> people get hurt. Marriage, on the other hand, when done with the right >>> reasons with the right two people, should not end..until death do you >>> part. Chew on that for a while. >>"Should" not end? Hmmm... No matter. > I'm being honest. The fact is many do. Even Christian marriages. But on > the whole, not as many as people think. Just as many as people think. Read the tabulated stats for divorce. And think about how many so-called good Christians don't divorce because they've been told it's wrong (not just Catholics, to be sure), and add those in to the total number of bad relationships. The problem here is not a Christian or religious one, it's based in the haphazard way we treat relationships. But a belief system that promotes the idea that marriage is a given or an expected thing leads some people into marriages that are quite bad, where marriage might not have been the right thing at that time for those people in that state. >>Is there something wrong with "getting >>hurt"? Must we always seek the ultimate protective sure-thing environment? > Isn't that what your "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" morality is all > about? Even if the discussion has another heading, your still Rich Rosen, > aren't you? With the non-infringement policy? Yup. Pray tell, what does non-infringement of others have to do with freedom to live your own life and possibly get hurt as a result of mistakes? Someone once quoted me the words of a dying old man who was asked on his deathbed what he would have done to have changed his life. His answer: make more mistakes. That sort of getting hurt may be painful, but it can also lead to learning and growth. A system that tries to steer you away from even the potential for "making mistakes" (especially given that what a "mistake" is is so badly defined) is sitfling and stagnating, and abhorrent to humanness. >>Why? In doing so, in fact, in seeking the unattainable "perfect lifetime >>relationship with a person living up to YOUR expectations", you are >>predestined to fail. (That much of determinism is a surefire reality!) > I guess we'll see about that. I'll let you know at the divorce court, that > is, if I ever get married. Indeed. The Zen Buddhists talk about the only to find something being not to actively seek it. Maybe this is a perfect example of where that applies. >>>The sexual life style is not all as glamorous as you make it out to be. >>The married lifestyle is not all as glamorous as you make it out to be. > Unquestionably true. Marriage is not glamorous. It just helps to make a > workable family unit. And who says that should be a given when it comes to life goals? The point of my vehicular substitution paragraph that replaced your references to "sexual lifestyle" with "married lifestyle" is that universal judgments of the type you want to make cannot be made about either. >>>Those things you say you want to do are filling some emptiness (need) >>>inside of you. God fills it too, if you let Him. >>Those things you say you want to do are filling some emptiness (need) >>inside of you. Freedom of thought and action do that too, if you let them. > Freedom of thought and action are there with or without *belief* in God. > The choice is always there, it is never taken away. I choose daily whether > to believe God or not. When I choose not, it is more fatal then when I > choose to believe. But that's only personal experience. But that's only one person's subjective perspective on HER personal experience. Millions of others "choose not", and live happy lives nonetheless. Which says to me, once again, that your statements are not absolutes. >>>And without the hurt >>>that numerous intimate relationships wind up inflicting on everybody >>>involved. >>And without the hurt that the intimacy of a single longterm relationship >>of commitment to a particular person winds inflicting on EVERYBODY involved. > The analogy here is that marriage is the ultimate fullfillment. Never said > it was. I said God is. Marriage is just better, but only when it works. And a "sexual lifestyle" (whatever that was supposed to mean---I can only assume that it means a non-marriage lifestyle) is just as "better" when *it* works. Again, God or not, no absolutes. > When a Christian waits for God to make the choice, it works. I can't speak > for the general populace. It's easy to reinvent the definition of the word "works" to suit whatever outcome occurs, especially when the other possible choices of action are never even considered. Any god worth its salt would want you to learn as much and live as fruitful a life as possible, and that would mean it would be uninterested in making choices for you, as you seem to want. >>>And if not the mental anguish...what about the physical diseases >>>going around. Fool around with the wrong person these days and you may not >>>be around to tell the story a couple of years from now or so. >>And if not the mental anguish...what about the high incidence of marital >>violence and abuse perpetrated by people who expect and demand certain things >>from a marriage. > Unfortunately, this point concerns people's judgement. You can't judge a > person as having VD or AIDS by his appearance. One night stands don't > allow you the luxury of finding out about a person. You can only HOPE that > you find someone honest enough to say. The same cannot be said for longer > lasting relationships when there is a mutual agreement of fidelity between > the partners. Oh, really? Then why the incredible statistics on spouse abuse? Perhaps because marriage was gotten into before the "finding out about a person" ever took place, because so many put on the airs of attractability until the spouse is "hooked", and only after the "hooking" does the real person that's been "hooked" come out. The same CAN and should be said about marriage when it is thought of as an expected thing to do and results in a longer lasting relationship that goes down the tubes, which happens all too often. >>Marry the wrong person these days and you may not be around >>to tell the story a couple of years from now or so. > If a person marries someone who physically abuses them, that is either > bad judgement or the person was fooled. Unfortunately, in most cases, > it is bad judgement. The case of being fooled can happen to anyone in > in any situation. God may reveal a little extra information to you, > however, that is not publicly availabe. "Zelda, the man you are about to marry is an alcoholic and will beat you and abuse you. Signed, God" Unfortunately, just the opposite happens: people in love are the easiest to fool. And this information, even if God used Emery Overnight, never arrives. In most cases, it IS being fooled. >>See how easy it is to make crass generalizations about a lifestyle? > Yeah. I'm getting good at it. I noticed. :-? >>> And if there is love, true love...why not marriage. >>And the more important question: if there is love, why MUST there be >>marriage? > Way back when, marriage was established by the sexual act, but the commitment > was more serious. The marriage paper does not constitute the marriage. It > is the vow that the people are making. God suggests one mate. He does that > from experience. Christians are obedient to God for reasons of Love and > experience. You can still do what you like. The arguments about whether we're dealing with the word of God (as assumed by so many) or not notwithstanding, this is still just one possibility of liefstyles among many, and no evidence has shown any to be fundamentally better than others. >>If you're talking about expectations, don't leave out marriage. More people >>get married with unvoiced preconceptions and expectations of what the other >>partner is "supposed" to be (it worked like this in my parents' family, >>the Bible says that a spouse is supposed to do this...) than we could care >>to count. And more of THEM wind up either in divorce or bitter twisted >>marriages as a result. > Tell me, Rich, how many marriages as compared with how many broken relation- > ships? Obviously, uncountably more relationships than marriages. Obviously? > Many more relationships end than proceed to marriage. Thus, many more > relationships are entered with those preconceptions and expectations. It > happens no matter what because that's the nature of people. Maybe many of > those marriages that you're talking about would have never happened if it > hadn't been the initial intimacy of sex. I think your problem is that you view this as a straight line from one night stand, to relationship, to marriage as the end of the line. It is more like a lattice with a variety of possibilities and no single "end". >>>If your not Christian, nobody's telling you to change your way of life. If >>>you become Christian, it's just a matter of time before you will, with God's >>>help. >>I'm not sure what on earth this has to do with my statement above. Christians >>have no monopoly on proper perspective about things like marriage, though >>your assertions in your article make it appear that you feel that you do. > Okay. I am playing both sides of the fence a bit. But that's just me and > my impressions. Other Christians have other impressions. I personally > decided that frivolous sex was not fullfilling sometime before I became a > Christian. But that's me. Some do it because they love God and want to > obey, some because of similar reasons as I have expressed. I think another problem is that you see it as a black and white dichotomy: frivolous (?) sex or marriage, and that is equally untrue. >>My point was that Jeff need not listen only to the Christian perspective on >>requirements about marriage, that (as shown above) a lot of assumptions are >>made within it. I doubt that he wants to hear anything but that perspective, >>but that's his business, and his problem. I'm just offering a different >>perspective from a different and perhaps less biased vantage point. > You're right. Jeff need not listen only to the Christian perspective. But > he's Christian and he is more likely to do so; not only because others say > it is better, but because he has a worthwhile relationship with God that > he values. And he deserves a good look at the other possibilities, even though he's been taught not to even want to "make mistakes". -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr