Attachment within sexual relationships.

[darin]

If your lover, girlfriend, husband, wife, etc, walked in one day and said they had just found love, how would you reply? I found this Buddhist article about attachments within a sexual relationship. I think I like it a lot. I think I want to be that - I want to be a person who would feel good for anyone who found the love of their life - even if that hurt me.




Is it possible to be in a committed sexual relationship and follow the Buddha’s teaching on non-attachment? Does loving someone deeply by definition mean we’re attached to them? Sunada doesn’t see these ideas as contradictory, and explores what an enlightened relationship might look like.

This year, my husband David and I will mark 27 years of being happily married. Am I attached to him? You bet I am. If he were to die tomorrow, of course I would be devastated. And am I completely unselfish in my regard for him? If I were honest, I’d have to say no. After all, what if he were to come home one day and say, “Sunada, I met a new woman and we love each other very much.” A completely other-regarding response would be, “I’m happy for you!” No, I couldn’t possibly imagine saying that.


My understanding of attachment is that it’s not about what we have or don’t have, but what our expectations of them are.

So does that make me a bad, overly-attached Buddhist? I would argue no.

So then what is non-attachment in a loving, committed relationship? My understanding of attachment is that it’s not about what we have or don’t have, but what our expectations of them are. As unenlightened people, we live with a persistent delusion that people and things will provide us with more happiness and satisfaction than they really can. And this is where we get tripped up.


…real contentment can only come from within ourselves. A partner can’t provide that for us, and to expect it will only lead to disappointment.

So for example, how much am I using my partner’s love to fill a void in my own love and acceptance of myself? A truly healthy individual is one who is complete by herself, and doesn’t need to depend on anything or anyone else to feel whole and content. I don’t mean we should go it alone and isolate ourselves from others. I mean simply not to depend on someone or something external to me as a necessary condition for my happiness.


So let’s not get caught up in our ideas of what attachment should or shouldn’t look like, what’s right or wrong. Let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees. A relationship with a partner, because it’s by nature where we open ourselves completely to another person, is a great working ground for understanding the true nature of self and other. When we have our defenses down and allow ourselves to be vulnerable to another person, we have the opportunity to explore deeply the nature of our own egos, desires, and expectations. We can challenge ourselves to aspire toward an enlightened relationship — one which is marked by a pure, unselfish, and unconditional love. What emerges is a partnership of strong individuals who don’t NEED each other, but openly give and take in loving support of one another.




http://www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-practice/love-sex-and-non-attachment

[indago]

If your lover, girlfriend, husband, wife, etc, walked in one day and said they had just found love, how would you reply?

It would be almost as bad as turning on your computer one morning and... NOTHING!. All you have is a bunch of metal, plastic, and some circuit boards. Your world is crushed...

[glockmail]

Been married 30 years. I tell my wife all the time, if she thinks she can find a better deal with someone else, then by all means, go for it. Me, I have the best deal imaginable.

[indago]

Been married 30 years. I tell my wife all the time, if she thinks she can find a better deal with someone else, then by all means, go for it. Me, I have the best deal imaginable.

I don't believe a woman really likes to hear that.

[Perianne]

I miss my husband every day. I didn't want him to leave me in any manner.

[tailfins]

If your lover, girlfriend, husband, wife, etc, walked in one day and said they had just found love, how would you reply? I found this Buddhist article about attachments within a sexual relationship. I think I like it a lot. I think I want to be that - I want to be a person who would feel good for anyone who found the love of their life - even if that hurt me.





http://www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-practice/love-sex-and-non-attachment

One does not ruin children's lives with a broken home just because it feels good. I know the words commitment, duty and honor are out of style, but they still spare us from lots of suffering.

[darin]

It would be almost as bad as turning on your computer one morning and... NOTHING!. All you have is a bunch of metal, plastic, and some circuit boards. Your world is crushed...

I think it might be a good thing to hear that. Selfless love would be happy for one's mate.


I miss my husband every day. I didn't want him to leave me in any manner.

I can imagine the hurt. :( I'm sorry.



One does not ruin children's lives with a broken home just because it feels good. I know the words commitment, duty and honor are out of style, but they still spare us from lots of suffering.


And the sense of commitment, duty and honor at ALL COSTS can create lots of suffering. My wife and I separating made my kids' lives MUCH MUCH better, and that feels good. To everyone. Did you read the link? This is about love - not recently-formed Christian ideals of what marriage/commitment should be. I suppose I could make the argument if I truly loved my wife and she found her true happiness with another man I would be beyond glad for her - happy for her because finding true happiness is rare and special.

[NightTrain]

I'm not wired that way. The betrayal from my first marriage left me crushed. Devastated. I couldn't even summon my anger to help, which is a damn sorry place to be in.

But once I finally was able to rouse my anger as a defense mechanism, triggered by concern for my kid's well being, it was a pure, white-hot fury that took several years to cool. But it gave me the edge and I won everything.

I see what the article is saying, but instincts for 1 man, 1 woman, 1 family is a powerful thing - and I think the notion of free love within the marriage is no marriage at all. It's a sham.

[darin]

Is it a sham because others are in a different place when it comes to all that?

As the author mentions, she is not enlightened yet - and she too would be devastated.

I LOVE the idea of what she writes. I would love to not allow another's happiness to cause me pain simply because their happiness means they leave me. I want to be strong enough to allow them to leave without impact to my self-worth - and remember, Conflict IS a perceived threat to one's self-esteem.

Further - I think I am no longer in a place where I can entertain the traditional ideas of what a relationship should be. But I am in my place - nobody has to understand. :)

[NightTrain]

Is it a sham because others are in a different place when it comes to all that?

As the author mentions, she is not enlightened yet - and she too would be devastated.

I LOVE the idea of what she writes. I would love to not allow another's happiness to cause me pain simply because their happiness means they leave me. I want to be strong enough to allow them to leave without impact to my self-worth - and remember, Conflict IS a perceived threat to one's self-esteem.

Further - I think I am no longer in a place where I can entertain the traditional ideas of what a relationship should be. But I am in my place - nobody has to understand. :)

Til death do us part.

IMO, that should be taken literally. Even though I'm twice married, I still believe that.

I know lots of guys that are confirmed bachelors... they'll get a girlfriend for a few years, then move on to other people and it's usually a somewhat problem-free breakup and they have fun with someone else for as long as they feel comfy in the relationship. I don't see anything wrong with that - they're happy with it and that's all that matters. And they're not engaging in marriages that are casually thrown aside, even though the promise was spoken.

I'm not judging! Just my view on it, for better or worse. (!)

[darin]

You know I love you Rick :)

[jimnyc]

You know I love you Rick :)

You told me that recently as well. I thought we were therefore spoken for. :(

[NightTrain]

You told me that recently as well. I thought we were therefore spoken for. :(

Oh shit, now Jim knows.

[indago]

You know I love you Rick :)

You two should get a room...

http://media.independent.com/img/photos/2007/06/21/motel6logo.jpg

They'll leave the light on for ya...

[glockmail]

I don't believe a woman really likes to hear that.


Lots of things I say my wife doesn't care for.

I think if all you're interested in sex you'e setting yourself up for some real bullshit.

A friend of mine was divorced about four years ago. He wasn't faithful, so she gave him the boot. He was devastated and wanted to contest the divorce (dumbass!). I helped convince him that it was over by looking at the bright side: he was free to dip his wick into anything he wanted no with no fear of further retribution.

He's been pretty active ever since, playing the field. Oh, I hear stories. He hooked up with a gal 25 years younger, scored some Viagra and had a hell of a time. Eventually he got tired of her immaturity so dumped her and moved on.

Fast forward through five more woman and 20-something wants him back. I heard half of one of these conversations while driving back with him from a ski trip, and after 30 minutes he put it on speaker and I heard the whole thing. After another 90 minutes I interrupted her, told her who I was, that I heard all the threats on his property and his newest gal, and that if she acted on any of this crap I'd be the best witness that that prosecution could wish for. Heck, I'm so good, people pay me to be their witness.

Later that night she broke into his apartment while he was locked in there, took off all her clothes and he refused to have sex with her. So she destroyed his apartment. He called the cops and she ended up in jail for 48 hours (mandatory here in NC) and during the arraignment the judge forbid her to have any contact with him until after the trial. :laugh:

[revelarts]

If your lover, girlfriend, husband, wife, etc, walked in one day and said they had just found love, how would you reply? I found this Buddhist article about attachments within a sexual relationship. I think I like it a lot. I think I want to be that - I want to be a person who would feel good for anyone who found the love of their life - even if that hurt me.

http://www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-practice/love-sex-and-non-attachment

I'm weird, I ask a lot of questions.
found love? So did you find Jesus? no?
And what exactly did you find with us when we got married?
That wasn't love?
So if you were wrong about it then maybe your wrong now right?
Or if that's faded away then this new "love" might fade too right and maybe even more quickly?

After repeated conversations and a bunch of irrational non-answers in reply I'd try a less rational approach and see if theres' a way to mend the relationship, then I'd step back more beaten and confused than ever and just let God do what he wants. I've tried all i know for better or worse.

Yes this has sort-of happened to me... no other person involved but " i'm not in love anymore"
We were at the brink of divorce with papers written up and a court date when she decided she wanted to try and work things out.
so we're back together . But I had literally stopped trying to "win" her back. i just treated her like a good neighbor, friendly but not to friendly not cold just not her "husband" or "boyfriend" or "family". And just let her go her way for like a year and half she moved out of town. Then.. to my shock... she reached out to me.

But dmp I know you'll think what i'm about to say is less than "enlightened" since i kinda want clear definitions and some logical connections of what people mean by the words they use. As well as you know i believe that Jesus is the most enlightened entity in the universe. In fact the creator so he knows best. So i can not BECOME MORE enlightened than Jesus on the matter. So we're already at an impasse there.
But for the sake of argument taking Jesus's clear teaching about marriage out of the picture it seems to me if the other person is now MORE enlightened then they'd be able to find love in the person they're with already.
Since they are the one that's supposedly has grown. And Since in Buddhism everything and everyone is worthy of love. So if they are being unselfish they would not seek to harm their mate in the selfish pursuit of even "love".

And in at least some form forms of Buddhism sexual or sensual wrongs are discouraged. As well as falsehoods.
so i'm not sure how what you quoted aligns exactly.

I mean no disrespect but you did asked for opinions. to me much of the quote seems necessarily self contradictory if you try to attach any solid meanings to the words.
If we want something that sounds good i guess it's ok. but it doesn't really EXPLAIN or outline a higher spiritual purpose that'd supersede a commitment of marriage or the acts made while in relationship that were in betrayal or trust to find this new love. Or consequences of the separation from the original partner.

As many have noted about marriage often "love" was not the 1st purpose or the ground anyway.
Most older versions of marriage in Asia as elsewhere were arranged.
Seems to me growing to love the person is a far greater spiritual act than "finding" it out there somewhere with someone else and leaving a partner behind hurt and alone. If we're talking about spiritual virtues.
At least that's what comes to my mind.


And finally my most cynical view of this is :
this kind of thing sounds sorta interesting but i've been around long enough to see people of various religious stripes claim a "spiritual" basis for betrayal.
"the Lord told me we should never have married"
"my spirit guide told me"
"I've gown to another level in my spiritual journey and person x and i are walking the same path in unity..."
"Our chakras are out of alignment."
"I should have never have married a Virgo"
etc..

I don't mean to dismiss the whole thing but on practical level I've observed that some of that kind of talk is just "spiritual" cover. And sadly it bears out when they leave the 2nd or 3rd person for other reasons too.

[Abbey Marie]

You told me that recently as well. I thought we were therefore spoken for. :(

Sounds like it's time for another staff key party. :eek::laugh2:


Oodles and Bunches of love,
Abbey


I'm not wired that way. The betrayal from my first marriage left me crushed. Devastated. I couldn't even summon my anger to help, which is a damn sorry place to be in.

But once I finally was able to rouse my anger as a defense mechanism, triggered by concern for my kid's well being, it was a pure, white-hot fury that took several years to cool. But it gave me the edge and I won everything.

I see what the article is saying, but instincts for 1 man, 1 woman, 1 family is a powerful thing - and I think the notion of free love within the marriage is no marriage at all. It's a sham.

I heart your last sentence.

[gabosaurus]

I have told my husband that I take the "till death do us part" portion of the wedding vows very seriously. :death:

[LongTermGuy]

I have told my husband that I take the "till death do us part" portion of the wedding vows very seriously. :death:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2_XpXpBQkUQ/VQTWqJ7A-qI/AAAAAAAAa6I/C9XvHLE9TEg/s1600/kakehi-champion.bmp

[darin]

Why did you make this have anything to do with me? As if you are debating me? We're talking about the topic - and your questions are probably best-served to the author, not me. I agree on her central point - and I think honest Christians would have no room but to be happy for their mate if this scenario played out. Nobody is saying it'd be easy, but true love would have to mean no measure of ownership over the other person. When they are happy (id est, finding somebody they are in love with), love dictates their mate share their happiness. Until love gets to the point that can happen, it's probably not true/enlightened/godly type love. To me it's clear you have almost NO understand of Christ's love. You haven't experienced it, so probably do not understand it. You misinterpret or partially-interpret scripture to back up your traditional views and that's dangerous - well, not exactly dangerous except to the extent you might harm others with your contrived dogma, even though the amount of harm may be hard to measure except in terms of the grief and sadness and hurt your non-god-based-traditional beliefs lead folks to.

Folks like you may be surprised how many Buddhists and hookers and atheists 'end up' in Heaven.

And here is the single best part about the concept the author speaks of - it means the end of heartache. To achieve a place where we value others' love and decisions more than whatever hurt they would cause would mean the end of heartbreak. That appeals to me. Should appeal to everyone I'd guess. Finding love without ownership/attachment seems like - from the few days I've been thinking about this - exactly what God would have us learn. If we are happy somebody else 'got' our mate, and since our mate IS Christ as much as we are (because Christ calls us his 'bride', and a bride-and-groom are ONE person/soul/entity in scripture), we might-should/could be happy for the person who is now with our mate in love. Maybe? I'm talking this out as I think it - but I think I'm about right, even if I haven't articulated it right, right now.

That's where I want to be - love-centric. Denying threats to my self-esteem (which is the root of all conflict). Denying ownership over the person I love. Loving the time she was there with me and being just fine with her not-being there because her path took her elsewhere. Hrm...


I'm weird, I ask a lot of questions.
found love? So did you find Jesus? no?
And what exactly did you find with us when we got married?
That wasn't love?
So if you were wrong about it then maybe your wrong now right?
Or if that's faded away then this new "love" might fade too right and maybe even more quickly?

After repeated conversations and a bunch of irrational non-answers in reply I'd try a less rational approach and see if theres' a way to mend the relationship, then I'd step back more beaten and confused than ever and just let God do what he wants. I've tried all i know for better or worse.

Yes this has sort-of happened to me... no other person involved but " i'm not in love anymore"
We were at the brink of divorce with papers written up and a court date when she decided she wanted to try and work things out.
so we're back together . But I had literally stopped trying to "win" her back. i just treated her like a good neighbor, friendly but not to friendly not cold just not her "husband" or "boyfriend" or "family". And just let her go her way for like a year and half she moved out of town. Then.. to my shock... she reached out to me.

But dmp I know you'll think what i'm about to say is less than "enlightened" since i kinda want clear definitions and some logical connections of what people mean by the words they use. As well as you know i believe that Jesus is the most enlightened entity in the universe. In fact the creator so he knows best. So i can not BECOME MORE enlightened than Jesus on the matter. So we're already at an impasse there.
But for the sake of argument taking Jesus's clear teaching about marriage out of the picture it seems to me if the other person is now MORE enlightened then they'd be able to find love in the person they're with already.
Since they are the one that's supposedly has grown. And Since in Buddhism everything and everyone is worthy of love. So if they are being unselfish they would not seek to harm their mate in the selfish pursuit of even "love".

And in at least some form forms of Buddhism sexual or sensual wrongs are discouraged. As well as falsehoods.
so i'm not sure how what you quoted aligns exactly.

I mean no disrespect but you did asked for opinions. to me much of the quote seems necessarily self contradictory if you try to attach any solid meanings to the words.
If we want something that sounds good i guess it's ok. but it doesn't really EXPLAIN or outline a higher spiritual purpose that'd supersede a commitment of marriage or the acts made while in relationship that were in betrayal or trust to find this new love. Or consequences of the separation from the original partner.

As many have noted about marriage often "love" was not the 1st purpose or the ground anyway.
Most older versions of marriage in Asia as elsewhere were arranged.
Seems to me growing to love the person is a far greater spiritual act than "finding" it out there somewhere with someone else and leaving a partner behind hurt and alone. If we're talking about spiritual virtues.
At least that's what comes to my mind.


And finally my most cynical view of this is :
this kind of thing sounds sorta interesting but i've been around long enough to see people of various religious stripes claim a "spiritual" basis for betrayal.
"the Lord told me we should never have married"
"my spirit guide told me"
"I've gown to another level in my spiritual journey and person x and i are walking the same path in unity..."
"Our chakras are out of alignment."
"I should have never have married a Virgo"
etc..

I don't mean to dismiss the whole thing but on practical level I've observed that some of that kind of talk is just "spiritual" cover. And sadly it bears out when they leave the 2nd or 3rd person for other reasons too.

[revelarts]

Why did you make this have anything to do with me? As if you are debating me? We're talking about the topic - and your questions are probably best-served to the author, not me. I agree on her central point - and I think honest Christians would have no room but to be happy for their mate if this scenario played out. Nobody is saying it'd be easy, but true love would have to mean no measure of ownership over the other person. When they are happy (id est, finding somebody they are in love with), love dictates their mate share their happiness. Until love gets to the point that can happen, it's probably not true/enlightened/godly type love. To me it's clear you have almost NO understand of Christ's love. You haven't experienced it, so probably do not understand it. You misinterpret or partially-interpret scripture to back up your traditional views and that's dangerous - well, not exactly dangerous except to the extent you might harm others with your contrived dogma, even though the amount of harm may be hard to measure except in terms of the grief and sadness and hurt your non-god-based-traditional beliefs lead folks to.

Folks like you may be surprised how many Buddhists and hookers and atheists 'end up' in Heaven.

And here is the single best part about the concept the author speaks of - it means the end of heartache. To achieve a place where we value others' love and decisions more than whatever hurt they would cause would mean the end of heartbreak. That appeals to me. Should appeal to everyone I'd guess. Finding love without ownership/attachment seems like - from the few days I've been thinking about this - exactly what God would have us learn. If we are happy somebody else 'got' our mate, and since our mate IS Christ as much as we are (because Christ calls us his 'bride', and a bride-and-groom are ONE person/soul/entity in scripture), we might-should/could be happy for the person who is now with our mate in love. Maybe? I'm talking this out as I think it - but I think I'm about right, even if I haven't articulated it right, right now.

That's where I want to be - love-centric. Denying threats to my self-esteem (which is the root of all conflict). Denying ownership over the person I love. Loving the time she was there with me and being just fine with her not-being there because her path took her elsewhere. Hrm...

Well hmm, DMP, your post isn't very loving toward my view.
sounds like you might be surprised that i make it to heaven.

Odd that you'd assume that i know nothing of God's love. etc etc .
Well all i can in reply is I'm sure that i have. Whether or not you're opened or enlightened enough to believe it or not is up to you.

But to your comments on this "love" again. Again based on what you've said.. off the cuff here. I'd see this as basis for a 3-some or just random hook-ups where the love of the moment 10 mins - here 2 days, 2 months 3 years there would apply. since it's based on love "feelings" and self fulfillment. It comes closer to hedonism only instead of (as well as) the sensual aspect it's lead by euphoric "love" emotions. And you say that you think it will end some suffering. well i suppose it could, but there's no doubt that for those "unenlightened" souls in the relationship ...spouses and children... it will be painful and disconcerting for a long time.

But if both parties go into a "relationship" with the idea that the other is free to go "love" others then having the attitude you describe would be a good one to hold. But as NightTrain mention there does seem to be something in humans that's looking for that longterm commitment to spouse and children. And every study shows that children do much better in a stable 2 parent homes. And all over the earth humans tend to have make 2 person long term monogamous unions as a basis for family relations.

As i said it sounds good on one level but in practical fact are we wired to become this enlightened?
It's one thing describe what might be but is it REALLY where we should be going?
Is loving one person with all you have though many adversities. Through emotional, spiritual and sexual changes and shunning all others till death wrong? Is that now unenlightened and LESS loving or good in your estimation at this point?

And i have to say again, maybe a bit more plainly, Jesus reaffirmed marriage and condemned divorce.
I'll stick with his views on this until i get an update myself. You're of course free to think as you will DMP.
It's not unloving to disagree.

I'll add this , which might rube you wrong as well but , the way the Bible describes God he's not one that seems to make what you and the article describe a goal. In the old testament one metaphor God uses to describes himself is as the Husband to Israel. And He talks about how he's grieved and angered when Isreal strays to other "gods". God makes a living example of how he loves Israel even though Israel is unfaithful again and again. God tells the prophet Hosea to marry a hooker. This hooker then leave Hosea again and again to go to other men, men who at 1st treat her well but then put her into slavery. Hosea is told by God to go buy her back. He does and she leaves again. God says Israel is like that women and he is like Hosea wanting his wife home and NOT out getting hurt. And NOT loving others. The imagery of adultery as a metaphor for people leaving God to worship what he calls FALSE gods and false teachings is throughout the old testament. and repeated in the new. With God always with his hand out ready to receive all who are tried of the lesser and unloving lovers.

[darin]

Well hmm, DMP, your post isn't very loving toward my view.
sounds like you might be surprised that i make it to heaven.

You're so full of shit right now.



Odd that you'd assume that i know nothing of God's love. etc etc .
Well all i can in reply is I'm sure that i have. Whether or not you're opened or enlightened enough to believe it or not is up to you.

I don't assume anything. I read the stuff you write and it's clear you're living a subjective love. If you want folks to think you know what love is, don't present self-seeking desire as love.



But to your comments on this "love" again. Again based on what you've said.. off the cuff here. I'd see this as basis for a 3-some or just random hook-ups where the love of the moment 10 mins - here 2 days, 2 months 3 years there would apply. since it's based on love "feelings" and self fulfillment. It comes closer to hedonism only instead of (as well as) the sensual aspect it's lead by euphoric "love" emotions. And you say that you think it will end some suffering. well i suppose it could, but there's no doubt that for those "unenlightened" souls in the relationship ...spouses and children... it will be painful and disconcerting for a long time.


Your speculation is yours. But perhaps a couple would have a sexual three-some or a ten-some. Doesn't have anything to do with love. Hedonism is the opposite of this, by definition self-seeking.



But if both parties go into a "relationship" with the idea that the other is free to go "love" others then having the attitude you describe would be a good one to hold. But as NightTrain mention there does seem to be something in humans that's looking for that longterm commitment to spouse and children. And every study shows that children do much better in a stable 2 parent homes. And all over the earth humans tend to have make 2 person long term monogamous unions as a basis for family relations.

That's a different topic, would you like to talk about open relationships now?



As i said it sounds good on one level but in practical fact are we wired to become this enlightened?
It's one thing describe what might be but is it REALLY where we should be going?
Is loving one person with all you have though many adversities. Through emotional, spiritual and sexual changes and shunning all others till death wrong? Is that now unenlightened and LESS loving or good in your estimation at this point?



Is it wrong to love more than one person through the same circumstances?



And i have to say again, maybe a bit more plainly, Jesus reaffirmed marriage and condemned divorce.
I'll stick with his views on this until i get an update myself. You're of course free to think as you will DMP.
It's not unloving to disagree.

No he didn't. (shrug)

Christ affirmed King David - and many other Godly men - while they had dozens of wives AND concubines. Were they out of favor with Christ?



I'll add this , which might rube you wrong as well but , the way the Bible describes God he's not one that seems to make what you and the article describe a goal. In the old testament one metaphor God uses to describes himself is as the Husband to Israel. And He talks about how he's grieved and angered when Isreal strays to other "gods". God makes a living example of how he loves Israel even though Israel is unfaithful again and again. God tells the prophet Hosea to marry a hooker. This hooker then leave Hosea again and again to go to other men, men who at 1st treat her well but then put her into slavery. Hosea is told by God to go buy her back. He does and she leaves again. God says Israel is like that women and he is like Hosea wanting his wife home and NOT out getting hurt. And NOT loving others. The imagery of adultery as a metaphor for people leaving God to worship what he calls FALSE gods and false teachings is throughout the old testament. and repeated in the new. With God always with his hand out ready to receive all who are tried of the lesser and unloving lovers.

...and then Christ and Grace happen. God clearly talks about the church as his bride; and Christ the bridegroom through the new testament. Based on Christ's comment's on marriage - about the two becoming one flesh - The church IS Christ in that sense. I'm sorry if you disagree, but take it up with the authors of the Bible.

[darin]

Then Josh said, “There was once a man who had two sons. The younger said to his father, ‘Father, I want right now what’s coming to me.’ So the father grew angry and hurt because his son wanted to leave. The father absolutely forbid granting his blessing to the son, instead telling the son "If you loved me, you would stay here! I cannot believe you now want something other than me! Is GOD telling you to leave? You know, this violates the Family construct God has possibly ordained, so my church teaches! After everything I've DONE for you, you want to leave now?"

After awhile the Father was court-ordered to divide his property amongst his son, thanks to liberal judges and the so-called 'Family' Court. The son got his share and left immediately for San Francisco. While there the son acted foolishly, spending the money partying and other debauchery. The son had gay sex a couple times, and out-of-marriage sex A LOT. Like...LOTS of sex and partying and it was awful. But the son was having a good time.

After awhile the son ran out of money and out of friends. To make it worse, the son had a raging case of super-herpes. While panhandling the thought occurred to the son, "Dang...the minimum wage servants at my father's estate have it better than I do. Maybe I'll approach my father and beg him to offer me a job working and living with them! I must have hurt my dad so badly. I don't WANT to be an employee but I don't deserve anything else. I really WANT to be a Son again.

As the son approached his Father's estate, his father spotted him. Within seconds the father ran - literally ran, not just a brisk walk - to his son and embraced the hell out of him. He kissed his son, and with passion. The son tried his prepared speech: "Dad, I'm an idiot. I wasted everything. I thought I found happiness and I forgot to find Joy. I'm such an asshole for hurting you. Please, hire me as a servant. I've learned who I am, and I am now a hard worker who will not let you down."

As they walked, both cried. The father managed, "Look man. I thought you were dead. In fact, you were dead to me in many ways. Seeing you leave killed me - I mourned your loss. But as much as I was hurt I am so happy to see you are alive. And you're hear. You've come home and I love you forever. I don't care about what you did because I love you unquestionably and without condition. " His father found him and repented his son, with a kiss.

Now the Father's older son got a case of the ass. The older son started spouting about how the younger violated God's constructs of family and obedience. "God SAID we have to respect and honor our Father and Mother - and this shithead did the opposite of that! How can you in essence REWARD him for violating long-standing Church ideals on FAMILY??!"

Those who want to feel justified in their love for others, or to place rules or requirements on their love are the eldest son. It's your choice - God will love you even if you have no real love for others. But that's your choice - your choice to place boundaries on your love. Don't pin your insecurities on Scripture as justification for your limitations.

You may love unconditionally and without reward. Or you may seek to be justified and look for a return on your investment. If the Buddha said anything about Love that is truthful, that truth is of-God. God is Love. IS love. Love IS God. To know Love is to know God's nature.

You don't have to be afraid of knowing unending, unselfish, unregulated Love.


In his book Mortal Lessons, Dr. Richard Selzer, writes, “I stand by the bed where a young woman lies, her face postoperative, her mouth twisted in palsy, clownish. A tiny twig of the facial nerve, the one to the muscles of her mouth, has been severed. She will be like this from now on. The surgeon had followed with religious fervor the curve of her flesh; I promise you that. Nevertheless, to remove the tumor in her cheek, I had to cut the little nerve. “Her young husband is in the room. He stands on the opposite side of the bed and together they seem to dwell in the evening lamplight, isolated from me, private.

Who are they, I ask myself, he and this wry mouth I have made, who gaze at and touch each other so generously, greedily?

The young woman speaks. “Will my mouth always be like this?” she asks.

“Yes,” I say, “it will. It is because the nerve was cut.”

She nods and is silent.

But the young man smiles. “I like it,” he says, “it is kind of cute.”

“All at one I know who he is. I understand and lower my gaze.

One is not bold in an encounter with a god.

Unmindful, he bends to kiss her crooked mouth and I am so close I can see how he twists his own lips to accommodate to hers, to show her that their kiss still works.”

I think God is the same way. He wants us to know that his love still works. We know the gospel is grace, we know God loves, inside we know that. That is one of the things that attracted us to God. Yet, even after we accept that, we reject it by working to get God to continue loving us. We work so hard, try to live up to a standard that God doesn’t have for us, something we have made up in our heads. And God is trying to say, I think you are beautiful, crooked mouth and all.

I want to love people as God loves people, because that is more important than any rule or law or church tradition - Loving God is more important than rigorous study of scripture. Loving people is more important than following whatever contrived construct about marriage or relationships created by the church. God is bigger than the bible. Your love, I submit, Must be bigger too. Good. Love. Truth. None of those are rules or requirements. In every attempt you or others make to live within 'the law' you crucify Love - you crucify Christ. Only when you stop basing your love on rules or requirements will you know the nature of God.

You seem - and millions of others - do not - do NOT WANT God's love, unless you can EARN it. You are the older brother - you followed the rules and yet the one who didn't is the one who has the Father's Love. The father never killed the calf for you and that hurts you. God stands with you saying you ARE with God. Don't sweat the love and grace I show others - even those who absolutely "sinned!". You cannot understand, you cannot love without losing your mind; having your mind - and traditions - blown.

[indago]

Why did you make this have anything to do with me? As if you are debating me? We're talking about the topic - and your questions are probably best-served to the author, not me. I agree on her central point - and I think honest Christians would have no room but to be happy for their mate if this scenario played out. Nobody is saying it'd be easy, but true love would have to mean no measure of ownership over the other person. When they are happy (id est, finding somebody they are in love with), love dictates their mate share their happiness. Until love gets to the point that can happen, it's probably not true/enlightened/godly type love. To me it's clear you have almost NO understand of Christ's love. You haven't experienced it, so probably do not understand it. You misinterpret or partially-interpret scripture to back up your traditional views and that's dangerous - well, not exactly dangerous except to the extent you might harm others with your contrived dogma, even though the amount of harm may be hard to measure except in terms of the grief and sadness and hurt your non-god-based-traditional beliefs lead folks to.

Folks like you may be surprised how many Buddhists and hookers and atheists 'end up' in Heaven.

And here is the single best part about the concept the author speaks of - it means the end of heartache. To achieve a place where we value others' love and decisions more than whatever hurt they would cause would mean the end of heartbreak. That appeals to me. Should appeal to everyone I'd guess. Finding love without ownership/attachment seems like - from the few days I've been thinking about this - exactly what God would have us learn. If we are happy somebody else 'got' our mate, and since our mate IS Christ as much as we are (because Christ calls us his 'bride', and a bride-and-groom are ONE person/soul/entity in scripture), we might-should/could be happy for the person who is now with our mate in love. Maybe? I'm talking this out as I think it - but I think I'm about right, even if I haven't articulated it right, right now.

That's where I want to be - love-centric. Denying threats to my self-esteem (which is the root of all conflict). Denying ownership over the person I love. Loving the time she was there with me and being just fine with her not-being there because her path took her elsewhere. Hrm...

That sounds more like a free-love situation rather than a marriage...

[Noir]

Tis a pretty interesting topic - I think we have much space to explore in the dynamics of potential relationships other than a binary 'til death do us part' staple we're mostly stuck with.

I know several people in polyamorous relationships and I think the the benefits inherent on both an individual and group level are greater than the sum of the negatives (which are usually religiously based)

The difference in perspective of
Binary - My partner has meet someone else, i will be alone, they don't love me anymore.
vs
Poly - My partner has meet someone else, I should meet them.
is stark, but i don't think our engrained bias towards binary relationships is going anywhere anytime soon because those roots have been dug deep.

[darin]

That sounds more like a free-love situation rather than a marriage...

Love must be free or it's not love.

[indago]

Poly - My partner has meet someone else, I should meet them...

And then we could have a three-some...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm not wired that way. The betrayal from my first marriage left me crushed. Devastated. I couldn't even summon my anger to help, which is a damn sorry place to be in.

But once I finally was able to rouse my anger as a defense mechanism, triggered by concern for my kid's well being, it was a pure, white-hot fury that took several years to cool. But it gave me the edge and I won everything.

I see what the article is saying, but instincts for 1 man, 1 woman, 1 family is a powerful thing - and I think the notion of free love within the marriage is no marriage at all. It's a sham.





The betrayal from my first marriage left me crushed. Devastated. I couldn't even summon my anger to help, which is a damn sorry place to be in.

But once I finally was able to rouse my anger as a defense mechanism, triggered by concern for my kid's well being, it was a pure, white-hot fury that took several years to cool. But it gave me the edge and I won everything.

Almost dead on, word for word, how I felt during my divorce. And yes, I got the house and custody of our 14 year old daughter.
Here in the South, it almost takes an Act of God, for the dad to get custody--even more so when the child is a daughter. Always a major slam on the mother in regards to her truly being a fit mother.. -Tyr

[darin]

^^ Wouldn't it be great to love ourselves enough to avoid trauma like that? That's my goal.

Course, with MY dating life, 'loving myself' is about as far as it goes. :(

[revelarts]

You're so full of shit right now.

and your full of love? your not even polite when we talk DMP.
Why the chip on your shoulder?





And i have to say again, maybe a bit more plainly, Jesus reaffirmed marriage and condemned divorce.
I'll stick with his views on this until i get an update myself. You're of course free to think as you will DMP.
It's not unloving to disagree.

No he didn't. (shrug)

Christ affirmed King David - and many other Godly men - while they had dozens of wives AND concubines. Were they out of favor with Christ?
...and then Christ and Grace happen. God clearly talks about the church as his bride; and Christ the bridegroom through the new testament. Based on Christ's comment's on marriage - about the two becoming one flesh - The church IS Christ in that sense. I'm sorry if you disagree, but take it up with the authors of the Bible.


Well you quote it yourself DMP "about the two becoming one flesh" .

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Matthew19

Jesus doesn't promote anything but "2 becoming one" and "male and female" in marriage.
that's it. if your looking for anything else you have make it up and shoe horn it in.
And we see here that that he doesn't say anything about OTHERS from the outside of that union coming in as an addition or breaking them apart. he says as Genesis does, "let no one separate".

As i mentioned dmp you may think you know better. fine. no hard feeling from me.
We disagree. I can't honestly read Jesus's words or the other teaching of scripture and pretend that it supports what you seem to be promoting here.

Just as i can't read your words here and honestly assume the love and " Attachment within sexual relationships" you're talking includes sex with animals or the dead. I can't honestly read the words of scripture and assume that "2" "male and female" and "let no one" REALLY means "2 or more" and "all genders any combo".
It's not an honest reading of the words.

again of course you're free to DO and THINK what ever you like but you can't honestly claim it's what Jesus described.
You may say it's what you think he meant.. or what buddhist mean... but it's NOT what he said.

[glockmail]

Think with your dick- you are a dick.

[darin]

You being full of shit has nothing to do with love; its you lying to people and yourself. Your logical fallacies run rampent and you refuse to consider other views. Did jesus allow solomon and other godly people to have more than one wife? If yes, maybe the church views are man-made. If no, than jesus is not God, and jesus is a liar, or you refuses to understand biblical context. Your choice.



and your full of love? your not even polite when we talk DMP.
Why the chip on your shoulder?




Well you quote it yourself DMP "about the two becoming one flesh" .

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Matthew19

Jesus doesn't promote anything but "2 becoming one" and "male and female" in marriage.
that's it. if your looking for anything else you have make it up and shoe horn it in.
And we see here that that he doesn't say anything about OTHERS from the outside of that union coming in as an addition or breaking them apart. he says as Genesis does, "let no one separate".

As i mentioned dmp you may think you know better. fine. no hard feeling from me.
We disagree. I can't honestly read Jesus's words or the other teaching of scripture and pretend that it supports what you seem to be promoting here.

Just as i can't read your words here and honestly assume the love and " Attachment within sexual relationships" you're talking includes sex with animals or the dead. I can't honestly read the words of scripture and assume that "2" "male and female" and "let no one" REALLY means "2 or more" and "all genders any combo".
It's not an honest reading of the words.

again of course you're free to DO and THINK what ever you like but you can't honestly claim it's what Jesus described.
You may say it's what you think he meant.. or what buddhist mean... but it's NOT what he said.

[revelarts]

You being full of shit has nothing to do with love; its you lying to people and yourself. Your logical fallacies run rampent and you refuse to consider other views. Did jesus allow solomon and other godly people to have more than one wife? If yes, maybe the church views are man-made. If no, than jesus is not God, and jesus is a liar, or you refuses to understand biblical context. Your choice.

sheesh,
I have no problem with you having a different view here, but seems to me you could be more uh diplomatic (if not loving) in your rejection of my understanding.
I haven't called you or your views "sh!t" etc.
I've simply said it's NOT what Jesus SAID, or what the Bible teaches.

And Dmp c'mon you think i "refuse to consider other views", dude I luv to hear, read and think about other views. But it seems like you think that "consider" is the same as EMBRACE or accept as true.
they aren't.
And there no dobut that you're rejecting my understanding pretty harshly. Have you "considered" it dmp?

As far as Solomon is concerned,
Well Yes God ALLOWED a lot of godly men and women to do a lot of things. God is very forgiving. It doesn't mean that he ENDORSES it or thought/taught it as the best thing to do.

And the Bible says that Solomon's wives turned him away from God.
As the the Mosaic law warned they would, It said the kings should not take multiple wives.

...When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,” be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himselfor make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold....
Deuteronomy 17:14-17


So I really don't see any really biblical support for your view here.
But again believe whatever you want. But There's no honest way read multiple wives or serial partnerships as being promoted in the Bible as GOOD or God/Jesus endorsed.

[tailfins]

Love must be free or it's not love.

I'm assuming the occasion where someone accepts the consequences of immorality. It's sounds like you're refusing to make the distinction of a slut versus a woman. If you confuse the two, you set yourself and others for a world of pain. If want to enjoy a slut, it's essential that you avoid any attachment whatsoever. If you're dealing with a woman, you have made some kind of commitment; you should keep that commitment.

[darin]

I'm assuming the occasion where someone accepts the consequences of immorality. It's sounds like you're refusing to make the distinction of a slut versus a woman. If you confuse the two, you set yourself and others for a world of pain. If want to enjoy a slut, it's essential that you avoid any attachment whatsoever. If you're dealing with a woman, you have made some kind of commitment; you should keep that commitment.

What I am refusing to do is let you completely change the subject.

Is love selfish? Can selfishness exist within love? If you answer yes, you are at odds with Scripture. If you answer 'no' you must allow for the topic of this thread to be viable consideration - assigning attachment to a love/sex relationship is selfishness; moreover, if your wife comes to you and tells you she's fallen in love with another person, a symptom of mature love is to wish her well and remain sound within your self-worth.

(shrug)

You refuse to learn things. I get it. But don't resort to logical fallacy - you're smarter than that.

[darin]

sheesh,
I have no problem with you having a different view here, but seems to me you could be more uh diplomatic (if not loving) in your rejection of my understanding.
I haven't called you or your views "sh!t" etc.
I've simply said it's NOT what Jesus SAID, or what the Bible teaches.

And you're lying or grossly mis-reading on purpose.

And I'm saying Jesus said the OPPOSITE of what you believe.



And Dmp c'mon you think i "refuse to consider other views", dude I luv to hear, read and think about other views. But it seems like you think that "consider" is the same as EMBRACE or accept as true.
they aren't.
And there no dobut that you're rejecting my understanding pretty harshly. Have you "considered" it dmp?

I'm saying you fight tooth and nail - completely avoiding points that counter your point of view.



As far as Solomon is concerned,
Well Yes God ALLOWED a lot of godly men and women to do a lot of things. God is very forgiving. It doesn't mean that he ENDORSES it or thought/taught it as the best thing to do.

So God was fine with folks doing certain things at certain times. God changes. God adapts his instructions.




And the Bible says that Solomon's wives turned him away from God.

Different topic.


So I really don't see any really biblical support for your view here.
But again believe whatever you want. But There's no honest way read multiple wives or serial partnerships as being promoted in the Bible as GOOD or God/Jesus endorsed.


Abraham. David. Esau. Jacob. (shrug) In fact - in 2 Sam, God says:


“And here’s what God, the God of Israel, has to say to you: I made you king over Israel. I freed you from the fist of Saul. I gave you your master’s daughter and other wives to have and to hold. I gave you both Israel and Judah. And if that hadn’t been enough, I’d have gladly thrown in much more.

Sounds a lot like Jesus was on-board with all that, no?

I'm saying, God cares about much more important things than Church or societal definitions of marriage. And the worst part - this thread isn't even about marriage.

It's about Love. And Love means - the fullest, most-mature measure of love - means not associating attachment with those we love - even those with whom we share the most intimate nature of love.

[crin63]

I love my wife and don't want her to leave but if she walked in and said she found someone else I would tell her goodbye. I'll help you pack, here's your pink slip, here's some cash, keep what's in your bank account and get out. Do not ever come back and do not contact me ever again. I've been through a divorce 23 years ago. We've been married 21 years but I made up my mind long ago how I would respond and she already knows it. There is no coming back once you leave. It's done!

[revelarts]

...

I'm saying, God cares about much more important things than Church or societal definitions of marriage. And the worst part - this thread isn't even about marriage.

It's about Love. And Love means - the fullest, most-mature measure of love - means not associating attachment with those we love - even those with whom we share the most intimate nature of love.

"Attachment within sexual relationships."

"If your lover, girlfriend, husband, wife, etc, walked in one day and said they had just found love, how would you reply? I found this Buddhist article about attachments within a sexual relationship. I think I like it a lot. I think I want to be that - I want to be a person who would feel good for anyone who found the love of their life - even if that hurt me..."


sex, love and attachments "isn't even about marriage" ?
OK Dmp, if you say so. But yeah, we disagree.
But I have to say it seems you might be hanging out with gnostic-christian-bishop on this one.

[darin]

"Attachment within sexual relationships."

"If your lover, girlfriend, husband, wife, etc, walked in one day and said they had just found love, how would you reply? I found this Buddhist article about attachments within a sexual relationship. I think I like it a lot. I think I want to be that - I want to be a person who would feel good for anyone who found the love of their life - even if that hurt me..."


sex, love and attachments "isn't even about marriage" ?
OK Dmp, if you say so. But yeah, we disagree.
But I have to say it seems you might be hanging out with gnostic-christian-bishop on this one.

More logical fallacy. Stop pretending to try.

As if to a 5 year old:

"If mommy came home and told Daddy she found love, Daddy's "love" for mom, at its BEST and HIGHEST level should ultimately be happy for mommy."

You and others tried to make this about polygamy. You tried to bring in out-of-context scripture. I let you go there a bit by showing clear evidence Christ supported and sanctioned multiple wives and even concubines - then reminded you at its core, this topic is about Attachment or Ownership within a loving relationship.

And no - Christian's are NOT mandated to have sex ONLY within a legal marriage. Human sexuality and circumstances are MUCH more complicated than a simple 'thou shalt' command. As evidence, look through the bible. Christ was pretty clear hookers and what-not will enter heaven before the religious leaders. He didn't say 'former hookers.' and probably for a reason. To teach/think otherwise falls into the category of "watch out - in the last days you will be taught all kinds of wrong shit, because people will want to limit God and your access to Him."

[glockmail]

Some people will do anything to justify their perversions, but this is the first time I've seen someone claim Christ approves. :laugh:

[darin]

Some people will do anything to justify their perversions, but this is the first time I've seen someone claim Christ approves. :laugh:

Even fewer will stick to the topic at hand ;)

If anyone has trouble with Christ-sanctioned polygamy in the Bible, take it up with the authors.

[glockmail]

Yeah right, keep repeating that shit to yourself. :laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

Darin, you know I think you're a great guy...

All I know is that on our wedding day, in front of God, our pastor, and everyone we cared about, my husband and I took solemn, intentional vows, where we swore to "forsake all others" until death.
I realize that for close to half of us, that doesn't stick. But anyone who knows me can attest: I surely am not going to say it's ok, if my husband doesn't keep his end of that particular promise. Let alone be happy for him.

:coffee:

[Black Diamond]

Darin, you know I think you're a great guy...

All I know is that on our wedding day, in front of God, our pastor, and everyone we cared about, my husband and I took solemn, intentional vows, where we swore to "forsake all others" until death.
I realize that for close to half of us, that doesn't stick. But anyone who knows me can attest: I surely am not going to say it's ok, if my husband doesn't keep his end of that particular promise. Let alone be happy for him.

:coffee:

Solemn senior admin....

[aboutime]

Speaking personally, now married 47 years, as of March 21st. That attachment is primarily for Honest people who know how to keep their word, their promises, and for those who know how to speak only the truth, no matter how hard it may be, or embarrassing.

It's not just a joke to say "Honesty is the best policy." It also prevents anyone from needing to remember their Lies, since the truth, and honestly do not require THINKING about the right answers.

[Abbey Marie]

Solemn senior admin....

:thumb:

[Black Diamond]

:thumb:

What part of "foresaking all others" and "till death do us part" do folks not get?

[Noir]

What part of "foresaking all others" and "till death do us part" do folks not get?

The part were life isn't a binary black or white path.

[indago]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Black Diamond http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=807312#post807312)
What part of "foresaking all others" and "till death do us part" do folks not get?


The part were life isn't a binary black or white path.

Yes, they might as well get rid of that in the marriage ceremony...

[Black Diamond]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Black Diamond http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=807312#post807312)
What part of "foresaking all others" and "till death do us part" do folks not get?



Yes, they might as well get rid of that in the marriage ceremony...

Well 50 percent of the time they go back on their word. I just don't think people take vows seriously.

[Abbey Marie]

Well 50 percent of the time they go back on their word. I just don't think people take vows seriously.


For some people it's more about the wedding than the marriage. :dunno:

[Noir]

For some people it's more about the wedding than the marriage. :dunno:

And for some people its about not being forced to stay in a relationship thats making them unhappy because of a vow they made in spite of other people making comments like


I just don't think people take vows seriously.

[jimnyc]

And for some people its about not being forced to stay in a relationship thats making them unhappy because of a vow they made in spite of other people making comments like

No one is "forced", unless your a muslim. The "vow" part isn't holding a gun to anyones head. It's a personal vow between partners under God. If unhappy, they vow to work it out instead of bailing.

Are you "forced" to eat veggies because you're a vegetarian/vegan? Or is it a choice one makes and vows to stick with it?

[Noir]

No one is "forced", unless your a muslim. The "vow" part isn't holding a gun to anyones head. It's a personal vow between partners under God. If unhappy, they vow to work it out instead of bailing. Are you "forced" to eat veggies because you're a vegetarian/vegan? Or is it a choice one makes and vows to stick with it?

Depends on what you consider 'forced' i certainly know people who have been removed from a church (and that churches social circle - which was very difficult for them personally) because of divorce.

Thankfully such views are withering in my nation, as i assume they are in yours too, but some comments in this thread still hark back to this outdated sentiments.

[Abbey Marie]

Depends on what you consider 'forced' i certainly know people who have been removed from a church (and that churches social circle - which was very difficult for them personally) because of divorce.

Thankfully such views are withering in my nation, as i assume they are in yours too, but some comments in this thread still hark back to this outdated sentiments.


You are making a different argument now. What Jim challenged you on was your saying "because of a vow they made in spite of other people..." I will echo Jim's question: Who forces us to take marriage vows?

Coincidentally, are there any institutions you actually like? I'd say that you are against anything that is even remotely connected with religion; specifically Christianity. This knowledge makes your arguments against marriage suspect.


Thankfully such views are withering in my nation, as i assume they are in yours too, but some comments in this thread still hark back to this outdated sentiments.

Oh yes, thank goodness we are doing away with such dangerous ideas as marriage vows and fidelity. Whew! How did we survive such horrors?

[Noir]

You are making a different argument now. What Jim challenged you on was your saying "because of a vow they made in spite of other people..." I will echo Jim's question: Who forces us to take marriage vows?

I did not intend for my comments to refer to being forced into marry, rather being forced to stay married (as i thought was explicit in my phrasing "forced to stay in a relationship")

[Noir]

Oh yes, thank goodness we are doing away with such dangerous ideas as marriage vows and fidelity. Whew! How did we survive such horrors?

I was talking about getting rid of the idea that someone should be removed from a social circle/church because they become divorced is withering.

[jimnyc]

I did not intend for my comments to refer to being forced into marry, rather being forced to stay married (as i thought was explicit in my phrasing "forced to stay in a relationship")

No one is being forced to stay married any more than you are being forced to remain a vegetarian.

[Noir]

No one is being forced to stay married any more than you are being forced to remain a vegetarian.

As i said, thankfully such views are withering. But there are still groups that are very backward in this respect, and when these people are your social circle it can be very oppressive.

[jimnyc]

I was talking about getting rid of the idea that someone should be removed from a social circle/church because they become divorced is withering.

Not being part of the roman catholic church after divorce is part of canon law. You also cannot get married in such a church after divorce either, unless said marriage is annulled. I have no problem with such things. My Dad went through such things and ultimately got remarried and joined a Presbyterian church. Jeff would know which denomination for sure. Jeff joined yet another. I'm still a member of my church but would understand if I got divorced and they wouldn't remarry me there. You would still be able to go to services whenever you want, it's not like they walk around checking ID's!!

I do however take issue with folks that would cut others out of their social lives as a result, to me that makes no sense.

[jimnyc]

As i said, thankfully such views are withering. But there are still groups that are very backward in this respect, and when these people are your social circle it can be very oppressive.

Sure, some smaller churches will literally forbid you, and cast you out from other parishioners. But in the grand scale of things...

While other religions will cut your head off if you don't believe, or believe elsewhere, or believe in another religion. Being "forced" to marry elsewhere isn't so bad in comparison. Even being a cast-out and being "forced" to worship elsewhere still leaves one alive and as free as can be.

Folks have choices. They know their religions, their faith system and what the rules are of the places they CHOOSE to be members of. And like any other place in the world that has a member based system, it has it's rules.

[Gunny]

I'm not wired that way. The betrayal from my first marriage left me crushed. Devastated. I couldn't even summon my anger to help, which is a damn sorry place to be in.

But once I finally was able to rouse my anger as a defense mechanism, triggered by concern for my kid's well being, it was a pure, white-hot fury that took several years to cool. But it gave me the edge and I won everything.

I see what the article is saying, but instincts for 1 man, 1 woman, 1 family is a powerful thing - and I think the notion of free love within the marriage is no marriage at all. It's a sham.

Hope you don't think this is some exclusive club, bubba. I got your 6 on this one. I couldn't even think. Had my oldest daughter not refused to leave ME (tossed moms to the curb :) ), I'd probably be insane. I had Marine officers treading lightly around me. Unlike you, I had no problem with the anger thing and I was on a hair trigger.

And my first concern WAS my kids. I came from a broken home. I did everything in my power to not repeat it. Unfortunately, it takes 2.

[Abbey Marie]

As i said, thankfully such views are withering. But there are still groups that are very backward in this respect, and when these people are your social circle it can be very oppressive.

I will posit that for a pastor to not maintain the tenets of his own church/theology is backwards and wrong.

I've never known a church to ignore or reject someone who is sincerely contrite about their sins, though.

[Gunny]

There's a LOT of math to this, and the church is only part of it. We live in a society where abortion and divorce are cheap. I don't like you putting your feet on the coffee table. Time to call the Lawyer. Used to, you just made things work and walked around each others weaknesses/slights. Now it's "screw you, I'm leaving". Leftwingnut laws have created this mess. We have allowed everyone an easy out from responsibility. And it doesn't pertain solely to this topic but in all facets of our society. Everyone's got an excuse.

[glockmail]

What part of "foresaking all others" and "till death do us part" do folks not get?

For some, "think with dick" rules. :laugh:

[Jeff]

Lets see I was raised Catholic and then went to a Methodist (Presbyterian) church and am now in a Baptist church, I have been to Pentecostal churches as well and have never ever seen one person asked to leave a church for any reason even if they have been divorced. Now if you wish to attend a Catholic church that is fine, but if divorced you can not join the church, yea all because of a simple thing called a vow ( ooo by the way the word Vow is defined as, a solemn promise, pledge, or personal commitment: marriage vows; a vow of secrecy.) After reading the definition and Noirs complaint of a Vow forcing people to stay married, well maybe if it bothers ya that much you should make sure of what ya want before ya promise someone forever. :dunno:

With that said yes I have been through a divorce and no I couldn't join a catholic church unless I get the marriage annulled, but I have been to Mass many times since my divorce in a Catholic church and have never had a issue or been asked to leave or anything even close. I made a Vow under God, and I did so knowing I was very young as was the EX so divorce was possible, but we did everything we could do to keep our Vows, but in the end it was worse for our kids if we stayed together so we divorced knowing what the deal with the Catholic church was but again I was never asked to leave a church, the EX well I would hope they threw her out of the state let alone the church.:laugh: When I received my drivers license I knew it was against the law to drink and drive as well, dam law kept me from getting drunk and driving.:rolleyes: And just to be clear I was Catholic when the EX and I met but we where married in a Methodist church, the preacher was that good.

[darin]

Darin, you know I think you're a great guy...

All I know is that on our wedding day, in front of God, our pastor, and everyone we cared about, my husband and I took solemn, intentional vows, where we swore to "forsake all others" until death.
I realize that for close to half of us, that doesn't stick. But anyone who knows me can attest: I surely am not going to say it's ok, if my husband doesn't keep his end of that particular promise. Let alone be happy for him.

:coffee:

Love dictates otherwise. I mean Love. Real Agape or otherwise love means selflessness, right? Nobody I know would truly be happy for their mate if their mate left because nobody I know has that level of Love. I am not promoting people leaving on a whim. I'm not promoting anything but folks seeking a deeper, more-pure love. Think of the freedom of 'no heartbreak'. I know I'd really enjoy not having to feel personal anguish at betrayal or disrespect because I'd reached a point with humility and love where disrespect or offense against me cannot happen.

And you've been saying I'm great for years, honey, and I have yet to have ONE hook-up or e-date with ANY of your hot attorney (female) friends....(sigh).


<3

[Gunny]

Lets see I was raised Catholic and then went to a Methodist (Presbyterian) church and am now in a Baptist church, I have been to Pentecostal churches as well and have never ever seen one person asked to leave a church for any reason even if they have been divorced. Now if you wish to attend a Catholic church that is fine, but if divorced you can not join the church, yea all because of a simple thing called a vow ( ooo by the way the word Vow is defined as, a solemn promise, pledge, or personal commitment: marriage vows; a vow of secrecy.) After reading the definition and Noirs complaint of a Vow forcing people to stay married, well maybe if it bothers ya that much you should make sure of what ya want before ya promise someone forever. :dunno:

With that said yes I have been through a divorce and no I couldn't join a catholic church unless I get the marriage annulled, but I have been to Mass many times since my divorce in a Catholic church and have never had a issue or been asked to leave or anything even close. I made a Vow under God, and I did so knowing I was very young as was the EX so divorce was possible, but we did everything we could do to keep our Vows, but in the end it was worse for our kids if we stayed together so we divorced knowing what the deal with the Catholic church was but again I was never asked to leave a church, the EX well I would hope they threw her out of the state let alone the church.:laugh: When I received my drivers license I knew it was against the law to drink and drive as well, dam law kept me from getting drunk and driving.:rolleyes: And just to be clear I was Catholic when the EX and I met but we where married in a Methodist church, the preacher was that good.

Contrary to popular myth/assumption, I just want to be left alone. I don't like the Baptist church because they want to glad-handle everyone. I don't want to be noticed. Y'all go about your business and leave me teh Hell alone. But no, they want to recognize you, everyone shakes your hand, and you fill out some card. It's like you're on display. I can't stand that crap.

True story: I went running one day after me the ex and the kids went to church. I come back in time to see the biddy committee show up and have the ex trapped on the porch. She's looking right at me as I just decided to turn that 3 miler into a 5 miler and kept right on going.:laugh2: I was REALLY popular at the dinner table that night. :)