Spiritual Marriage/Gay Marriage

paladin · #1 05-05-2006, 10:25 PM

What is marriage all about? Is it the money, the commitment, the spiritual bond? What is the long term benefit to marriage? So, why wouldn't it be the same for gays as with straights?

clinquant · #2 05-05-2006, 10:58 PM

i really don't know, how about you tell me?

marriage is the church or state sanctioned union of two consenting, unrelated adult people.

in my country that's what it is, at least.

Quote:

Canada approves same-sex marriage

Alexander Panetta, Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, June 28, 2005

OTTAWA -- It was fought in courtrooms, in legislatures, in street protests, and one of the most turbulent debates in Canadian history was settled Tuesday with a vote in Parliament.

The House of Commons voted 158 to 133 to adopt controversial legislation that will make Canada the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.

Several Liberals marked the occasion by invoking the memory of their party's philosopher king, Pierre Trudeau.

It was the late Liberal prime minister who decriminalized homosexuality in 1969, and whose Charter of Rights and Freedoms became the legal cudgel that smashed the traditional definition of marriage.

Barely two years ago the Liberal government was still fighting same-sex couples in courts across the land.

It changed its tune amid an onslaught of legal verdicts in eight provinces that found traditional marriage laws violated the charter's guarantee of equality for all Canadians.

"(This) is about the Charter of Rights," Prime Minister Paul Martin said earlier Tuesday.

"We are a nation of minorities. And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights.

"A right is a right and that is what this vote tonight is all about."

But there was no unanimity even within Liberal ranks. More than two dozen Liberal MPs voted against the controversial Bill C-38, to cheers from the Tory caucus.

One even exiled himself to the backbenches to vote against the bill. Joe Comuzzi resigned his cabinet seat Tuesday as minister for northern Ontario's economic development.

The House immediately adjourned for the summer after the same-sex vote, and won't meet again until Sept. 26 -- ending one of the most tumultuous sessions in Canadian parliamentary history.

The same-sex marriage bill will become official once it receives approval in the Senate, likely within days. With it the barriers to gay and lesbian weddings will tumble in Alberta, P.E.I., Nunavut and the Northwest Territories -- the last jurisdictions where courts have not yet struck down the marriage law.

The legislation applies to civic weddings at public places, like city halls and courthouses. No religious groups will be forced to sanctify same-sex marriages if they don't want to.

But Conservatives promise the debate isn't over yet.

Leader Stephen Harper said he will bring back the same-sex marriage law for another vote if he wins the next election.

"There will be a chance to revisit this in a future Parliament," Harper said. "Our intention is to have a free vote."

How Harper might handle the issue in future is unclear since almost every provincial and territorial government has made gay marriage legal.

The Liberals said Harper has only one tool at his disposal: the Charter's notwithstanding clause, an escape hatch which no federal government has ever used.

"They're going to have to at least be honest with the people," said Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.

"They're going to have to acknowledge that they want to override the (Charter of Rights), override constitutional-law decisions in nine jurisdictions in this country, override a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, override the rule of law in this country."

Cotler now occupies Pierre Trudeau's former Justice Department office, with a poster of the late justice minister-turned-prime minister overlooking his desk.

The Tories weren't sharing their fond memories of Trudeau.

Alberta MP David Chatters lamented what he described as Canada's "moral decay" and blamed Trudeau's promise of a just society as the start of that decay in the 1960s.

But an Irish-born rookie Liberal MP was quoting Trudeau's famous line about the state having no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

Michael Savage spoke poignantly about a member of his own family, and described the tolerance that he says makes Canada special.

"I have not compromised my faith in supporting this legislation. I have embraced it," he said.

"The fact that we (in Canada) are among the first is not something we should hide. It's something we should celebrate. . . .

"(We are) a nation of equality. A nation of strength. A nation of compassion. A nation that believes we're stronger together than we are apart. And a nation where we celebrate equality. . . .

"We will send a statement to the world that in Canada gays and lesbians will not be considered second-class citizens."

One Tory MP scoffed at the Liberals' self-proclaimed defence of human rights. He said the government has failed to protect the rights of children by refusing to toughen child-pornography laws or by raising the age of sexual consent above 14.

"I'm sick and tired of hearing people on that side of the House talking about rights, rights," Myron Thompson said.

"I can point to dozens of things we've seen in the last 12 years where they have refused to give rights to certain individuals."

In the last two years, same-sex marriage has gone from being legally feasible to a fait accompli.

After a series of legal challenges the walls started tumbling down on June 10, 2003.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Michael Leshner and Michael Stark, a gay Toronto couple, and ordered public institutions like courthouses and city halls to immediately begin issuing same-sex marriage licences.

Scores of same-sex American couples came to Canada to be married. Thousands of Canadians exercised their new right.

The Ontario verdict became written in stone days later, when then-prime minister Jean Chretien announced he would throw in the towel in the fight against gay and lesbian couples.

The federal government refused to appeal the Ontario ruling, and the verdict was subsequently repeated in courts in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

When Martin became prime minister, he avoided discussing the politically sensitive issue and punted it off until after the June 2004 federal election.

But he came out strongly in favour of same-sex marriage in the dying days of the campaign. His Liberals were re-elected with a minority government.
© Canadian Press 2005

http://www.canada.com/national/story...e-f35ccd7b6a6f

why the controversy?

like i said in an earlier thread, because i believe that those against homosexual marriage are uncomfortable with the notion of homosexuality, and that's it.

and my question to you is thus - unless you're homosexuality yourself, why exactly do you care? how does this effect you?

paladin · #3 05-05-2006, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clinquant

i really don't know, how about you tell me?

marriage is the church or state sanctioned union of two consenting, unrelated adult people.

in my country that's what it is, at least.

why the controversy?

like i said in an earlier thread, because i believe that those against homosexual marriage are uncomfortable with the notion of homosexuality, and that's it.

and my question to you is thus - unless you're homosexuality yourself, why exactly do you care? how does this effect you?

It sounds pragmatic and legalistic. Where is the spiritual connection? Maybe marriage from this perspective is formalistic to appease the political pressure; But, I'm interested in discussing the spiritual benefits to marriage. You must have an opinion--please tell!

Life partner: does this need to be legally sanctioned?

clinquant · #4 05-06-2006, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin

It sounds pragmatic and legalistic. Where is the spiritual connection? Maybe marriage from this perspective is formalistic to appease the political pressure; But, I'm interested in discussing the spiritual benefits to marriage. You must have an opinion--please tell!

Life partner: does this need to be legally sanctioned?

spiritual benefits to marriage?

i personally don't believe there are any.

it's my opinion that marriage is a "union" created by humans and nothing more.

we don't want to believe that we're truly alone in this world.

a simple ceremony does not "connect" two spirits.

we tell ourselves it does.

"the church" declared marriage as a sacrament.

not god, but men.

the notion of marriage as a spiritual connection is absolutely engineered by human beings.

we are born alone, we die alone.

marriage has no significance besides that which we choose to place on it.

as martin luther said, marriage is a "worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government".

i'm inclined to believe.

does "life partner" need to be legally sanctioned?

that's up to each individual couple to decide.

i don't need a meaningless ceremony to justify anything.

i also don't have the right to impose these beliefs on anyone else.

if you believe that your relationship - be it with a consenting adult of the opposite or same sex - needs to be validated in such a way, then so be it.

as per canadian law, "No religious groups will be forced to sanctify same-sex marriages if they don't want to."

which is fine i suppose.

wanna belong to a club you've gotta play by the rules.

but homosexuals are human beings entitled to every right that heterosexuals have.

state-sanctioned marriage, as per canadian law, should be open to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

we're all members of society.

now what's your answer?

paladin · #5 05-06-2006, 02:07 AM

clinquant,

Have you had a spiritual experience that you are aware of?

Have you been married?

Have you put yourself in a vulnerable position with someone, where you committed your self and soul to their happiness over yours?

clinquant · #6 05-06-2006, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin

clinquant,

Have you had a spiritual experience that you are aware of?

Have you been married?

Have you put yourself in a vulnerable position with someone, where you committed your self and soul to their happiness over yours?

define "spirtual experience".

no, i haven't been married but i was engaged for some time.

and yes, i have been in a vulnerable position with someone in which i committed myself to their happiness over my own.

i didn't like it.

i was unhappy.

is that really a good thing?

sacrificing your happiness for the happiness of someone else?

i dunno man.

i'm not really interesting living a life like that.

and i can speak from experience, because i did do it for a while.

and it nearly destroyed me.

Riotfug · #7 05-06-2006, 06:18 AM

Marriage, in my humble opinion is a fucking waste of time and money.

Why the hell do we need a 35,000 dollar party to prove our commitment and love? It's too materialistic. Just a fuckin waste of time and money.

Ophiel Ophiuci · #8 05-06-2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin

What is marriage all about? Is it the money, the commitment, the spiritual bond? What is the long term benefit to marriage?

Marriage is an incredibly complex cultural article. One marriage can mean so many different things to so many people involve. People marry for money, power, legal recognition of their relationship, to cement a relationship they do not have faith in, because they have a child on the way, because of social obligation, peer pressure, out of habit, for fear of dying alone, and even out of love for each other and a desire to commit.

Deep down though, I don't think I'll ever really understand why people don't feel they can commit to each other without getting married. I don't understand why people have to convince themselves that any relationship they're in should be The One, that they should put it in the position of potentially trapping them long after the natural lifespan of the relationship has run its course. I'll admit I'm a cynical guy, but try as I may I can't think of any pure, innocent reason to get married that wouldn't be just as well served by staying faithful to one another. The only exception is when it comes to legal rights and inheritance, and if you make a will there's no real need for it unless I know nothing of the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin

So, why wouldn't it be the same for gays as with straights?

Interesting that you phrase it that way. Why do you think it wouldn't be?

paladin · #9 05-06-2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clinquant

define "spirtual experience".

no, i haven't been married but i was engaged for some time.

and yes, i have been in a vulnerable position with someone in which i committed myself to their happiness over my own.

i didn't like it.

i was unhappy.

is that really a good thing?

sacrificing your happiness for the happiness of someone else?

i dunno man.

i'm not really interesting living a life like that.

and i can speak from experience, because i did do it for a while.

and it nearly destroyed me.

I think spiritual experience is subjective, and I couldn't communicate mine to anyone effectively; this is the reason I phrased it the way I did.

Marriage is a condition different from relationship, per se. Marriage involves a deeper expression of self in a spiritual manner, IMHO. Trust has been an important aspect to my marriage. I hasn't been because of any legal commitment, but an opportunity to become whole in spirit; this is a condition I might define in terms the psychiatrist Carl Jung decribes in the term "individuation". Marriage helped me to grow beyond what I myself could have in a life partnership.

The psyche is complex. As it unfolds for a person it manifests in the world in many forms. I have been going through a balancing period for the last 4-5 years. Without the steady and secure nature of the marriage I am in, I don't believe I would have made it this far. Had my relationship not been a legal commitment my wife and I most likely would have separated. Through my growth period, "marriage" became more evident to me; throught the legal and spiritual commitments I was able to manage through an incredible period of uncertainty, introspection, and wonderment.

At this juncture in my life I have a "wife" and a "best friend". Now, you may think this a normal condition, but it isn't. I essentially have two wives: one that is my legal wife, and one that is a "best friend". My wife decided to remain "wife" whereas my college friend is now my spiritual wife/best friend. The two have met and are communicating via email to get to know each other better.

I did not marry the other woman because I sacrificed for her benefit; I wanted her to have the finer things in life that she deserved, and I could not do that since I was not born into a wealthy family. She was a woman of high demand in society. I knew that my future was destined to be a hard life on the "Road Less Traveled". I wanted the best for her, and she wanted the best for me; we went our own ways. She has never NOT been a part of me. I was married and commited for 27 years of marriege. Now I and my true soul mate are united again in spirit. She lives across the country and is married into a wealthy family. She now finds material wealth and social status to be of little meaning to her. I now fulfill her emotional needs, as do her children and friends. Her marriage is one of legal and social convenience, though she remains married, as I do. I do not plan to leave my wife!

There are two women in my life that I love dearly; they both love me. There is no jealousy, for we are all able to fit together well. Marriage has made this arrangement possible. Had I not married my wife--instead, married my soul mate-- I would NOT have experienced the growth I have. I could write an interesting book on this subject. If not for the spiritual aspect my wife and I would simply split resources and dissolve the partnership. Marriage itself held us together long enough for us to get through the difficult years. A legal and spiritual contract both made this growth possible. The other woman now has a deep spiritual connection and a true love in her life. The marriage of convenience has grown old and ugly. Money and status alone are not worth the paper the contract of marriage was written on.

I am unhappy that my sacrifice for my soul mate turned out this way for her. This was not the agreement that I made with God. She was supposed to live happily ever after with a rich prince, and I was to live a satisfied life knowing that she would prosper and find happiness in the style of the American Dream. I was to live a simple life and seek fulfillment through serving others.

I ask for advice and insight into "spiritual marriage". The other woman says she prefers the term used by gays, "life partner". I want to know if "best friend" is analogous to "life partner"(separated).

Both these women are as happy as I have even known them to be right now. I live by a strong set of morals and will do the right thing even if it is not in my best interest. These women know me too well; I would not want to hurt anyone, and they know this about me. They are well aware of the way decisions are made from their end. Women marry mostly for security; they look for the best financial provider to help raise their children, not the one who will provide them with the most love. This is a genetic principle. The contract of marriage helps when times get difficult in a relationship. My wife does not want to loose the house--I imagine she would get along fine with out me, for she is an attractive woman who could easily find someone to be her companion. As a man, I do the things for her she can't find in another woman.

Spiritual marriage/ life partnership-- discuss please!

clinquant · #10 05-06-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin

I ask for advice and insight into "spiritual marriage", because the other woman says she prefers the term used by gays, "life partner". I want to know if "best friend" is analogous to ""life partner"(separated).

i dunno man.

i think you're the only one who can answer this question for yourself.

see -

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin

I think spiritual experience is subjective, and I couldn't communicate mine to anyone effectively; this is the reason I phrased it the way I did.

as you said, "spiritual experience" is subjective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin

Women marry mostly for security; they look for the best financial provider to help raise their children, not the one who will provide them the most love. This is a genetic principle. The contract of marriage helps when times get difficult in a relationship.

that's bullshit and it's sexism.

you can't make sweeping statements like that about all women.

addionally -

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin

Marriage involves a deeper expression of self in a spiritual manner, IMHO. Trust has been an important aspect to my marriage. I hasn't been because of any legal commitment, but an opportunity to become whole in spirit

you contradicted yourself within the same post.

you said that most women enter marriage for "security" - financial and to help them raise their children.

you then indicated that marriage is something deeper, an expression of self in a spiritual manner.

i get the distinct impression that you're extremely conflicted and unhappy.

is all of this worth that to you?

is the happiness of another worth your own unhappiness?

ya know what?

it shouldn't be.

paladin · #11 05-06-2006, 01:08 PM

[quote=clinquant]

Quote:

that's bullshit and it's sexism.

you can't make sweeping statements like that about all women.

This comes from a statistical truth basis. Steven Pinker is a cognitive researcher and phychology professor that supports this statement in his book "Blank Slate".

Quote:

you contradicted yourself within the same post.

you said that most women enter marriage for "security" - financial and to help them raise their children.

you then indicated that marriage is something deeper, an expression of self in a spiritual manner.

Marriage brings two people together and it evolves. Marriage is a contract that adressed the need for "security". Spiritual development comes from the archetypal "dance of opposites". A soul mate is different from a legal partner, IMO.

Quote:

i get the distinct impression that you're extremely conflicted and unhappy.

is all of this worth that to you?

is the happiness of another worth your own unhappiness?

ya know what?

it shouldn't be.

In all this I am as happy now as I was when I first met my soul mate. My wife and I have a deep spiritual relationship because of the security I provide by living to my legal contract and sacrificing my own desires in the best interests of these two women. I know it is a balnacing act, but I fill different needs for both of them, and I do not deny what they truly are asking me for. My wife needs security; the other woman needs love.

clinquant · #12 05-06-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin

This comes from a statistical truth basis. Steven Pinker is a cognitive researcher and phychology professor that supports this statement in his book "Blank Slate".

gimme a link, please.

i need to see these statistics.

again i say, it's bullshit and it's sexism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin

Marriage brings two people together and it evolves. Marriage is a contract that adressed the need for "security". Spiritual development comes from the archetypal "dance of opposites". A soul mate is different from a legal partner, IMO.

that's your opinion to which you're entitled.

i happen to disagree with it.

if i believed in marriage, it would definitely have to mean more to me than a "legal partnership".

especially if there was someone else with whom i felt a genuine "spiritual connection".

that's just me though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin

In all this I am as happy now as I was when I first met my soul mate. My wife and I have a deep spiritual relationship because of the security I provide by living to my legal contract and sacrificing my own desires in the best interests of these two women. I know it is a balnacing act, but I fill different needs for both of them, and I do not deny what they truly are asking me for. My wife needs security; the other woman needs love.

okay.

so you're happy with this arrangement?

what the fuck's the problem here then?

you have an extremely round-about way of saying things you know.

it's confusing.

nonetheless, don't fool yourself into thinking you can pull the wool over my eyes (if that is in fact what you're attempting to do here).

i'm now beginning get the impression that all of this is a guise to undercut pro-gay marriage arguments.

the fact that you've mentioned homosexuals twice already in this thread leads me to believe this.

correct me if i've misread.

Gay · #13 05-06-2006, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clinquant

define "spirtual experience".

no, i haven't been married but i was engaged for some time.

and yes, i have been in a vulnerable position with someone in which i committed myself to their happiness over my own.

i didn't like it.

i was unhappy.

is that really a good thing?

sacrificing your happiness for the happiness of someone else?

i dunno man.

i'm not really interesting living a life like that.

and i can speak from experience, because i did do it for a while.

and it nearly destroyed me.

I know what you mean in a way. been through the engagement thing.. wont get into that...

Marriage is fine as a concept, the commitment is between you and the other, no one else accept your child/ren. its a legality only that its a law of the land, not for the government to control. thats just how it is these days.

To disagree with you on a point, I dont think man made up marriage. Ofcourse church took up the vows then the state made nullifyed it into institution, but it is spiritual in origin. in the gospel its said a way for man and woman to commit; tame each others passions and leave the past in the past, to have kids and share there hopes.
the wedding itself is not as important as people make it. most people think a marriage begins when its legal. well before the church or state, marriage is unrequited between only two people, whether its a soul mate or a convenient match. hence for better or worse.

Long ago the concept of wedding vows was to have someone ordained and people you know witness your vows 'till death/in sickness and health/better or worse', then eat drink and be merry. a celebration of something the couple already felt happened.

According to gospel, marriage is a option. but that its not nesscesary for personal growth. that non adulterous independance leaves you and your temple open to bigger commitments. take that how you will.

BleedingHeart · #14 05-06-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riotfug

Marriage, in my humble opinion is a fucking waste of time and money.

Why the hell do we need a 35,000 dollar party to prove our commitment and love? It's too materialistic. Just a fuckin waste of time and money.

thats ireland for you again. Its an Irish perspective where the 20,000 euro white wedding is a must. I dont believe marriage is a waste, legally it brings many benefits. I do believe in the same way though, that alot of people here just want to spend a ridiculous amounts on the actual wedding. I went abroad and got it done for 50 dollars. The wedding isnt important, the marriage is..

paladin · #15 05-06-2006, 11:39 PM

Can you love a person of the same/opposite sex as much or more than you do your spouse? And is that an infringement on your marriage? I often wonder if the institution of marriage inhibits the concept of "love thy neighbor as thyself"?

junkie_heart · #16 05-06-2006, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin

Can you love a person of the same/opposite sex as much or more than you do your spouse? And is that an infringement on your marriage? I often wonder if the institution of marriage inhibits the concept of "love thy neighbor as thyself"?

Uhhh, no. Well, yes, if you cheat on your spouse and happen to fall in love or whatever. Yes, it's an infringement on your marriage because marriage is between TWO people, not three. Especially not without the consent of your spouse.

If you're straight you can't love someone of the same sex as you would your spouse, it's just not possible.

Everyone has the ability to love, straight or not.
And it's not like gay people have a choice in the matter, you know?

It's basically saying, "I don't like the way you were born. You didn't make the choice to be the way you are, but I'm taking this right away because of it."