Has Texting KIlled Romance

Wescli Wardest wrote:

ren wrote: Should there even be such a thing as jedi marriage? With us all being linked together by the Force anyway...

That is very interesting…

After thinking about it I would say yes. I agree that we are all linked together (unified) in the Force. But our human experience; how we experience life as corporeal beings, is in part defined in our actions while in this form.

Where all our spirits are one in the Force, our bodies are unique vessels from which we experience life and part of that experience is the expression of love and commitment. Jediism is our expression of our spiritual and philosophical beliefs and marriage is our expression of love and sincerity. So a Jedi marriage could very well be the expression of love and sincerity through our spiritual and philosophical beliefs.

Don't we also advocate the avoidance of attachment in all it's forms however?

What is marriage but one of the ultimate expressions of attachment to another person.

I think that if you are getting married, or doing anything for that matter, because you fear losing it, then you are doing it for the wrong reason. And what is attachment if it is not the fear of losing something.

I do not see marriage as attachment but rather, two people choosing to spend their lives together. A similar thing can be thought about children. We do not have them to become attached to them or fear their one day venturing off on their own. And being a parent I will say that I love my daughter very much... and can’t wait for her to get out of my house. Hahahhahahahha :woohoo:

I do not see marriage as attachment but rather, two people choosing to spend their lives together. A similar thing can be thought about children.

But you on't need to marry to spend your life with someone or have children. In fact marriage does nothing to prevent you from not spending your life with someone or from not having children (or losing them).

You are absolutely correct. Not being married does not prevent any of those things. I said that marriage was an expression of love, sincerity and commitment, not that it prevented anything.

I hate to make comparisons mainly because I can’t think of a good one, but it’s like taking it to the next level… seeing someone, dating and going steady. It is probably not seen as being as important in today’s society as much as it once was. I also feel that the magnitude of such devotion is lost on so many. We live in a world where if you don’t like something you get rid of it or get something different. And the thought of committing oneself to another is probably too much for most to accept.

Words like duty, devotion, commitment and honor are lost for so many today. Sure they know the word exists and have some idea of what they mean; but the moral conviction which spurred their use is very distant for many.
:ohmy:

I am not trying to be mean or say that people can't commit or any of that. I am just saying that we live in different times and things of that nature have begun to go away.

Marriage is a symbol of two people becoming one. At least that is what the true meaning if marriage is. Nowadays people just think it is suppose to be a way to show how much you love someone but that is only part of it.

Wescli Wardest wrote: You are absolutely correct. Not being married does not prevent any of those things. I said that marriage was an expression of love, sincerity and commitment, not that it prevented anything.

I hate to make comparisons mainly because I can’t think of a good one, but it’s like taking it to the next level… seeing someone, dating and going steady. It is probably not seen as being as important in today’s society as much as it once was. I also feel that the magnitude of such devotion is lost on so many. We live in a world where if you don’t like something you get rid of it or get something different. And the thought of committing oneself to another is probably too much for most to accept.

Words like duty, devotion, commitment and honor are lost for so many today. Sure they know the word exists and have some idea of what they mean; but the moral conviction which spurred their use is very distant for many.
:ohmy:

I am not trying to be mean or say that people can't commit or any of that. I am just saying that we live in different times and things of that nature have begun to go away.

i don't get it. I on't want marriage to change anything for me. (other than certain legal advantages).

And you're missing something I said: "But you don't need to marry to spend your life with someone or have children." And I'd like to add you don't need marriage to be sincere, committed or in love... How can it be a symbol of something it has no effect on? Way back, marriage was nothing like what we do toay. It wasnt done by the government or by the church. It was a peasant taking an other peasant as his/her wife/husband... Which basically meant they were going to live together and have kids. There was no ceremony... Ceremonies are something only the kings/lords did.

ren wrote: Way back, marriage was nothing like what we do toay. It wasnt done by the government or by the church. It was a peasant taking an other peasant as his/her wife/husband... Which basically meant they were going to live together and have kids. There was no ceremony... Ceremonies are something only the kings/lords did.

I’m not sure where you’re getting that? It is not hard to find documentation of wedding ceremonies being performed since the Reissuance, pre Dark Ages, Roman Empire, ancient Greece, etc…

And way back, marriage had some differences but that really depends on the society you are comparing to the present.

Now, large wedding ceremonies done in cathedrals and things of that nature were limited to the nobility... yes. But I am not limiting the definition of wedding ceremonies to something that Hollywood portrays as “how it should be.”

From the Druidic practice of a Hand Binding Ceremony (marriage that states to two are only joined as long as the love lives) to the joining ceremony conducted by the Chief or Medicine Man of the Crow, wedding ceremonies have been around as long as people have fallen in love with each other.

ren wrote: And you're missing something I said: "But you don't need to marry to spend your life with someone or have children."

I didn’t miss it, I said…
“Not being married does not prevent any of those things.”

That may not have been the answer you were looking for, but it answers it.

That's just it. Marriage has become about ceremony. It's similar to a knighting ceremony here at TOTJO. Why do you have to have a knighting ceremony? What does the knighting ceremony change about your knowledge or commitment to the Force? The knighting ceremony is to Jediism as marriage is to love, that is to say it is completely unnecessary, however it serves as a way to have others recognize your devotion and commitment.

May the Force be with you,
Rai

it's not even about Ceremony anymore actually. the ceremony is about two people becoming one. but that is not what many people use t as any more. To my knowledge only a handful of people get married because of the rue meaning. To celebrities it is for popularity. To some people it is because they feel they will never be able to find the right one and do not like change.

Wescli Wardest wrote:

ren wrote: Way back, marriage was nothing like what we do toay. It wasnt done by the government or by the church. It was a peasant taking an other peasant as his/her wife/husband... Which basically meant they were going to live together and have kids. There was no ceremony... Ceremonies are something only the kings/lords did.

I’m not sure where you’re getting that? It is not hard to find documentation of wedding ceremonies being performed since the Reissuance, pre Dark Ages, Roman Empire, ancient Greece, etc…

And way back, marriage had some differences but that really depends on the society you are comparing to the present.

Now, large wedding ceremonies done in cathedrals and things of that nature were limited to the nobility... yes. But I am not limiting the definition of wedding ceremonies to something that Hollywood portrays as “how it should be.”

From the Druidic practice of a Hand Binding Ceremony (marriage that states to two are only joined as long as the love lives) to the joining ceremony conducted by the Chief or Medicine Man of the Crow, wedding ceremonies have been around as long as people have fallen in love with each other.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/ritesrituals/weddings_1.shtml
"before the wedding service was written into the Book of Common Prayer, marriages were much more informal: couples could simply promise themselves to one another at any time or place and the spoken word was as good as the written contract."

http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries



Also, very little is known about the actual practices of the celts, mostly because the best account there is was written by julius cesar, and very probably in a way that would encourage romans to support his invasions of gaul and britain... Either way, handfastings, if they indeed existed, were in fact temporary "marriages"... And even celts, if they did marry at all in the way we understand today, those who did it apparently were those who had wealth or something to gain in it. Average peasants (the majority of people) did not marry, they just lived together with a certain understanding that it wasnt a temporary arrangement.

It seems obvious to me that the "traditional marriage" people keep banging on about is actually very modern, and that polygamy and adultery were the norm... And that at least since Rome until the industrial age, (actual) marriage was in fact "political" and that it was improper to love your wife.

ren wrote: And you're missing something I said: "But you don't need to marry to spend your life with someone or have children."

I didn’t miss it, I said…
“Not being married does not prevent any of those things.”

That may not have been the answer you were looking for, but it answers it.

... My bad I misquoted. :silly:
I was saying that marriage does not prevent the destruction of a relationship or loss of children... Since we agree that people do not need marriage to have a relationship, and that it (obviously) does not prevent the destruction of a relationship, marriage must therefore serve another purpose... and not be the symbol of "two people choosing to spend their lives together".