Proponents of marriage argue that the vows of marriage cement your love and show that you are committing your life to this one person.
That is one argument, and not based on religious moral grounds. Another argument is simply a belief that men and women should not be with one another until they are married. And people should get married so they don't try to be with one another. Considering marriage is a religious thing, I'd have to say that this is the better argument.
Nobody has been able to, to my satisfaction, explain to me how this same end cannot be achieved by professing your love to someone and moving in together.
Simple, marriage is a commitment. Commitment makes people take things more seriously.
Further, in a story I linked to an article in a previous journal entry, When living together, he said, the attitude is "I vow to stay together with you as long as you make me happy." In a marriage, people focus on making their partners happy.
"If you're used to viewing being together as a test of the other person's ability to take care of your needs, once you get married it's hard to just switch that," Horn said.
Think about it: do I really "trust" my love in the hands of an institution that can be destoyed
The institution is not destroyed. The government recognition of it is.
(At least this would explain the 50+% divorce rate.)
Not at all. Marriage has been around for thousands of years, and the divorce rate was nowhere near this. The high divorce rate has been linked to (though the link has not been proven) to the fact that people live together before marriage, or who don't have religious beliefs.
He went on about this concept at great length. I was feeling a little queasy at points.
Too bad. (Normally, this may be a sign of low self-esteem.) When I see someone making a remark contrary to what I "know". I laugh at them. If you can laugh, it shows that you believe in your opinion, and not their's. (Though it has nothing to do with the veracity of the comment itself.)
Little known fact: according to god's will, thou shalt not wear clothing woven of two cloths.
Only when the two cloths are wool and linen. Pretty rare case.
I think I'll submit only to myself, thanks much.
That's not called submitting. That's called doing what you want. You may submit some desires to other desires though.
On this note, I respect people who write or select their own vows, it shows that they are putting a lot of thought into the commitment.
It also shows their lack of respect for anyone other then themselves. They don't believe they should rely on what others have thought of. Only what they think is good.
It may be nice in addition though.
When you just recite the stuff straight from the book though, it seems kind of rote and meaningless.
True, unless you know what it means.
I would rather have a pleasant romantic evening together where we both profess to love each other forever, and then combine our respective belongings into one abode.
And where is the commitment? The force of the commitment makes people take it more seriously. Romantic evenings should happen afterwards. Thus, the honeymoon.
I would perhaps seek a legal union for the benefits entitled to one's partner, but I fail to see how that substantially alters the relationship.
The relationship changes when you decide to be each other's partner for life, not when you've got the sheet of paper.
In a sense. But better put, when you "commit".
Instead of rings, show your commitment to each other by adopting a dog together.
Rings are not needed. Anyone know where rings started? Background is that the Bible says a man should "take" his wife. So, it requires an action (one of three). The common one (in Judaism) is "buying". If something cheap is used, the women would not "accept" it. I don't know where the ring started, but something nice was always used.
Christianity probably got rings from Judaism but dropped the reason. Thus, I don't think rings are needed at all.
Showing your "commitment" by buying a dog, would not do anything. It is a nice action, and even nicer when done together, but it has nothing do do with commitment, other then being together. It may be a nice gesture for friends to do though. (I actually like that idea.)
No anniversaries. Why not be nice to each other every day
Because being nice takes a great emotional expenditure, and most people cannot do that every day. Well, in great amounts. Besides, it would likely become routine, and be rather meaningless.
Instead, they should be nice to each other (or not be married!). But great strides should be made on anniversaries. Why? Well, I used to wonder about the purpose of anniversarizing the birth date of a friend. I finally realized that we all want to show appreciation to our friends. But it is hard to do every day. A thank you will do every day, but now and then we want to make great emotional (and financial) expenditures for them. It shouldn't happen too often though. So, once a year is fine. Doing it on the a person's birthday has the significance, that you are saying, "I am happy that you were born." Sounds trivial at first, but it is actually one of the greatest compliments that can be given. I would apply the same reasoning to anniversaries of marriage. "I am glad that I married you."
Another reason, it that being extra-special gives a "booster shot" to your love. Once a year is a good time for that.
The problem that I have is that religion should be absolutely separated from governmental operation. People could argue for days about what the framers of the constitution meant, but I think that it just makes good sense.
Wrong on two counts.
1) The framers had nothing to do with the first amendment. In fact, I think the "Bill of Rights" was a big mistake.
2) The amendment has nothing to do with separating religion and state. It merely allows for religious freedom by the state not recognizing any (specific) establishment. I would even say that the amendment would have been written differently had its writers realized how it would be used.
Marriage would be the union between two people as sanctioned by your religion. In marriage, you could have as many spouses as the religion deems necessary. Civil unions would be government recognized partnerships. At any given time, you could only have declared one partner.
That's silly. Why should the state be able to sanction monogamy? In fact, poligamy make a whole lot for sense (many men, many women) like a group of people deciding to support each other.
Instead, the state should say in which contexts a unit (created by more than one person) is necessary, and let people apply for recognition. This way, the requirements would be simple, and tied to the purpose. Whether the purpose be for taxes, adoption, or whatever else requires more than one person.
This would make a distinction between that ever so holy sacred institution that shalt not be tarnished and the institution which grants people certain rights and priviledges.
Think about it. If it is the government defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then these people are arguing that the legal definition of marriage should not be changed because of what the legal definition of marriage is. This does not make sense. The only other place where I see a definition of marriage is religion.
The other area where it is defined, is in how poeple see marriage. If marriage is seen as a recognition of a union, then you are correct; it is defined by religion. However, others see marriage as a place where children can be raised, in that, some would argue that both a man and a woman should be around for the child.
Also, I believe that the government does not recognize unions as much as they recognize existing marriage. In other words, marriage is a religious union, and the state decided to recognize it. Thus, in that, the government cannot change marriage. They can merely drop it and recognize an alternative form of union.