Are emotions a sufficient basis for marriage?

[Oni]

This is text I found on a Christian site. I found it rather interesting. They say that you do not need love to get married. I find that rather interesting. I thought I would share it with everybody in hopes of hearing your opinions.



Are emotions a sufficient basis for marriage?

Hollywood has propagated the myth that when it comes to marriage "all you need is love." This is simply not true. Marriage is not based on emotion any more than any other partnership in life is. Marriage, like many human activities, involves emotion but it is not constituted by the presence of any particular set of emotions. I do not deny that many homosexuals feel deeply for their partners; however I do assert that no matter how deep the feelings, what they have is not a marriage in God's sight. It is a beautiful deception.

Just because an emotion is deep or powerful does not justify acting upon it. Like drugs, like adultery, like the abuse of alcohol or the love of money, or the power rush of human ego trips, there are emotions which are powerful and addictive and ultimately terribly destructive. Same sex marriages must satisfy criteria other than emotion. A marriage is more than a sexual pleasure center. A marriage is a social unit that is interwoven with dozens of other lives.

Same sex marriages do not last. Less than 5% of gays have ever had a relationship that lasted 3 years or more. Sex is not enough. Passion cannot sustain an inherently unstable social unit.

Text copyright © 1997, 2002, John Edmiston & Eternity Online Magazine. All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached "Usage and Copyright" page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html

[Rachael]

I love that site!  I go there after seeing a movie to see what offended the people.  The kids' movies are the funniest.

I think what they were trying to say was that our emotions can mislead us sometimes.  We might think we're in love when we're really not.  When we're blinded by our romantic and lustful passions, we sometimes don't realize that there's more to love than birds singing and flowers blooming and that "top of the world" feeling.

A website I used to go to gave what I thought was a really good example of real love:

"Suppose you're married and your pregnant wife has food cravings. It is four in the morning, and she wants you to go to the grocery store to get her fudge-brownie ice cream, pickle juice, and beef jerky. You roll over and look at your bride and she does not seem to be glowing like she did on your wedding day. At four in the morning, your world is not looking beautiful and the singing birds have gone mute. But after kissing her fevered forehead, you walk out the door and drive to the store. Has love gone away? Actually, it's more real than ever."

I think two people who truly love each other don't quit when the going gets tough.  I think in a meaningful married relationship, the couple won't get a divorce when everything stops being perfect.

I agree with what they are trying to say, except for the whole bit about a homosexual couple being incapable of having that kind of love for each other.  Of course, even if they do, the person writing the article is against homosexual marriage because he believes it goes against God's law.

[Oni]

Meow,
I believe that Emotion is a Requirement of any relationship. No matter the relationship. As far as a requirement of marrage. Well it all depends on the reason for getting married.
But if it is REAL marrage, then I would have to argue that Emotions of Love are a requirement. That person that wrote that, all but directly said that Homosexuals can not feel love, and what they feel is not real. Marrage is more than just a sexual pleasure center, that’s one of the things that makes it special. It is a bond between people, it is a special bond that they have with no others, and are showing the world that they have this bond.
I am sure they have great reviews of Kids movies. I would love to read some of them, just have not had a chance to stumble across them, nor the time to read them. Your Avatar is an interesting one. To be honest not one I expected from you.
Now what I say to your post, I mean no disrespect or insult by. So please bear with me on this.
“birds singing and flowers blooming and that "top of the world" feeling” Wow I thought that’s what love was…my bad. LOL.
Just cause you are mad at some one does not mean that you don’t love them. Fox and I get mad at each other from time to time, but ya know what, that’s some of the things that make our relationship stronger.
With Love comes all sorts of other emotions, and understandings, for example you learn to understand, comprimse, and work with the other. All because you love them. But some times even with all the love in the world a marrage simple will not work. There are some couples that may love each other, but can’t get along living with one another.
Marrage is exactly what a couple needs it to me, nothing more, nothing less. It is a special union, that no one can destroy, except the people involved in it. Gay or strait the reqirements are the same.
That you love one another. If you get married, and you do not love eachother you marrage (unless for political reasons, and even then) is not real, just a formality.

[electrolass]

Hmmm.  Marriage without emotion.  Very vulcan.  The idea probably would have merit on say, a Vulcan planet.  Strangely enough though, emotionless marriages have been very successful in upper class, European society.   The upper classes have spent thousands of years joining loveless men and women in marriages that forge unions between countries and kingdoms.  Men and women were raised to believe that their individuality was not complete unless they were joined with another in marriage, and that once joined it was their solemn duty to remain married.  Two people married and suddenly wars could cease, or wars could begin.  Property changed hands, doweries were settled.  European marriage is all about the passing of names, rights of succession and establishing heredity.  How many times has it been said that emotions often get in the way of good business?  Heck, in a "successful marriage" like the sort upper class, Europeans embraced, emotions are the last thing one would want to have to deal with. 

Okay, it wasn't only the upper middle classes, but historically, the lower classes have had quite a bit more freedom when choosing their mates, however, their unions didn't merit the attention of the secular government.  Their marriages were simply and carried out through the church.  King Henry VIII was a perfect example of how marriage and rights of succession meant more to the upper classes than the validation of God.  His first wife produced no heirs for his throne, so he dumped her and moved on to Anne Bolin.  The church didn't condone this behavior, so King Henry separated the church and state, created a secular, state recognized form of marriage, then divorced his first wife.   Then of course, Anne failed to produce and so on and so on, blah, blah, blah. 

Well, my partner and I shared strong emotions when we first met, have seen those emotions fluctuate, wax and wane, and morph into altogether emotions.  Sometimes are emotions are in perfect sync, and life is awesome, and sometimes, we have to step aside from our emotions to survive as a couple.  "You take the good, and take the bad, and take them all and then you have the facts of life, the facts of life."  LOL

[Rachael]

Um...where exactly did you disagree with me, Oni?  I do think that a couple can love each other and still get mad at each other.  And I was saying there is more to love than all that musical, flowery stuff.

As for my avatar...What?  You don't think I like Jesus. :p

[Oni]

Reading over it i think i was working on two topics at the same time lol.
What all is there to love hun?
there is a difference between being in love and being in a relationship.

[Rachael]

Why are you asking me?  I don't have any idea!

All I know is that I've seen plenty of couples who claim to "love" each other, and then they break up the next day.  Or they break up and get back together countless times, and I realize that they're only hurting each other but they're so desperate for attention that they feel as if they can't live without each other.

To me, that's not love.  But I don't know much more about romantic love than they do, because I've never been in a serious relationship.

[Goman Fox]

I looked through that link and honestly was bothered by it.  Not by what was said, but by what wasn't said.  They said that same-sex couples don't meet the "criteria" for marriage, but nowhere do they say what that criteria is.

And I love how they quote the Corinthians verse that's often used against homosexuals, yet differs in so many versions of the bible.  And it's especially great how they specificially say "no homosexuals."  I remember one of Johnathan's sermons a few months ago where he mentioned that (I think) and pointed out how the word "homosexual" only came into existance a few decades ago or something, yet is used in this verse.

Honestly, I think there's a big problem with current bibles because of they way they've been translated.  You can't take something, translate it into "modern-day language", then years later, update the language again, and keep doing that, updating each version that comes out.  The meaning gets lost through so many "translations" and the only true way to know what was said would be to translate it directly from original scriptures, not rewritten versions.

It's like translating a sentence to another language, then translating it back to the original language.  Anyone that's studied foreign languages and knows more than one can tell you that it's not hard for the original meaning to get lost just by translating to one language and then back again.

I remember a week or so ago, Kritter mentioned (through a slip of the tongue, from her thinking in Spanish and speaking in English) that a car at a stop light "bit the red light."  Obviously Oni and I had no idea what she was talking about, but apparently in Spanish (at least the Spanish that Kritter was taught), it isn't said that a car "runs" the red light, but instead "bites" it.  No idea why, it's just one of those differences between languages.  But if you take that into consideration in translating, you can see how meanings can be lost pretty easily in translation.

There's even variations in how things are worded in the same language in different time periods.  Translating English from 100 years ago, to English now (assuming it's from the same region, so like American English) there can be differences.  Like in that christmas carol (I forget the name right now though) with the lyrics "now we don our gay apparel" I honestly doubt they're referring to tight shirts and short shorts or anything like that...

I just don't think the versions of the bible today should be taken so seriously though.  Especially ones that are often used as an excuse to discriminate against others.  Today's bibles may say being gay is wrong, but I honestly don't believe that original versions of the bible would have said it.  But what do I know?

[Rachael]

I believe variations on the word "homosexuals" include "Sodomites" and "male prostitutes."

Sodom and Gomorrah was more than just a city full of gay men.  It was a city of corruption and sexual promiscuity and murder.  Pretty much every sin was committed there.  People didn't love each other.  They only committed acts that would satisfy their own desires, not caring about anyone else.

And as for male prostitutes...well, I'm sure you can see the problem there.  Especially in a culture where it was common for middle-aged men to have sex with teenage boys.

There have been entire essays, maybe even books, written on that small passage.  Honestly, Paul was also an overt sexist.  Same with Peter.  I'm not really fond of the two, to tell the truth.

[Rev. Johnathan Jones]

Well Oni has been bugging me to make a post on this topic- so here goes- make sure you all respond!

Until the last 200 years love was never a basis for marriage. People married to "seal a deal" so to speak. For example, if a young up and coming author in 18th century England came from a poor house he may ask a rich Lord to be his patron/sponsor. The Lord would say ok, but then require the author to marry his daughter as an assurance.

Marraiges were more often than not arranged- like the binding together of two houses to make the two houses into a stronger single house. In ancient times a man will marry his daughter of to another man as part of a trade. Ie- your daughter for my land.

Arranged marriages still take place in Asian and African cultures and Muslim cultures throughout the world.

Also, marriage was only allowed for the rich. If two commoners fell in love, they would simply move in together and have children etc. It would have been a "common law" marriage.

But in our culture today we marry because of love- in good times and bad. Marraige is never easy and takes a lot of work!
--------

next topic:

The Bible was originally written in 3 languages- Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek. It was then tranlsated into Latin and then it wasn't until maybe 2 or 3 hundred years ago that it was translated into English- by King James.

Today we have hundreds of different translations available in English. And these translations represent the bias of the particular translator. So, our best bet is to try to find what the originally language said. However not many people know Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek. I only know the Greek (and I did get a high distinction when i finished seminary, but I am still an amateur).

But.... note that the word "homosexual" was not created until the 1800's, so no where in the original text of the Bible is the word homosexual found.

Rachel is correct when she says the sin of sodom and gomorrah was a collection of terrible sins. Unfortunately most people pay undue attention to the mob men sorrounding the house of Lot and demanding to have sex with the male angels in Lot's house. Demanding sex and being violent to get it is not homosexuality! It is rape. Lot compromised and gave the mob of men his two virgin daughters instead- the mob of men then raped the two daughters. Once again this is not homosexuality.

The two words translated by some as homosexual are (in greek) malakos and arsenakotai. They literraly men male-bed and soft.

Male-bed: this means a male temple prostitute
Soft: soft represents are young boy who would be "taught" by an older man. It was a socially acceptable form of peadophilia at the time. Paul is calling this wrong, not concensual same-sex relations. Until recently most scholars translated soft as pedastry, it was only in the last few years that pedastry was replaced with homosexuality. Once again, pedastry is not homosexuality.

So you get the picture.

Any questions?

[Rachael]

You spelled my name wrong.  :'(

But I'm happy that you cited what I said.

[Oni]

In hopes of allowing the newer members of the site to comment on this thread. I figured I would bring it back to live.

*breaths the breath of GOD into this thread*

[scooter]

You say you have GOD on your breath?  Hmmm... smelled like chips to me...

[Taylor-MadeAK]

*rubs eyes*

Too early for this sh**.

Blah.

I do find the OP entertaining, though.  The original author goes to great pains to try and convince the reader that marriage "isn't based on emotion," yet he never tells us what he thinks it is based on.  I dunno, maybe it's just me, but after being married for nearly a decade and a half I can tell you that I married my wife - and stay married to her - for no greater reason than that I love her.

[Oni]

What about all those marrages that are done ... well for non love reasons.

Should people just get married if they love eachother, or are other reasons ok?