Alain de Botton on our high expectations for modern marriage. He argues that expecting one person to be a good partner, lover and parent is - almost - asking the impossible. And he shows how different it all was before the mid eighteenth century... http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b012lmhc/

I heard this this morning. I very good talk on the history of the ideal of marriage. 

I agree entirely with Adain botton..None of us can be all things to all men/women; but what we can be is intimately faithful, and fulfill friendships and some social activities with others.

I do not believe if one partner is repetitively abusing the other that the same rules apply, for marriage is a commitment and a contract if one partner receptively abuses then they have broken the contract.That applies across the board never mind the "type" of marriage.

Now of course this only works on the monogamous model, not even necessarily the "Christian model" So i am aware and wary of undermining the marriages in other faiths who use the polygamous model.

The law in this country still states we live in a monogamous society, but i know its up for debate to change that to polygamous for other faiths to protect the women concerned through the legality of maintainace for them and their dependants.

I guess the question is do we want a society where marriage is seen as the antisocial thing to do ?in opposition to people living together in long term relationships (which is what my mother does). or a situation where people have multiple partners with no commitment without regard for the stability of the family?..Do we want to live in a two tier or even multi layer society where anything goes?, Can we cope with the broken people in this situation? or will they be broken if it is the norm?

I would feel quite sad if the norm became that people accepted that commitment was not necessary. Its hard work though sometimes especially if you are surrounded by broken ness. Polygamy to me seems to favour the men more than women , women get left with less insurance , children to care for isolation and often an inability to work if there is no support, as well as all tjhe character assassinations and slurs if a woman had multiple husbands..

But relationships are about more than finances even though finances play a huge part in the ability to cope through the stressful times.

I was reading some old notes of a study i did a while back and i had referred to a book by Nigel Middleton with his reflections titled " When family failed" he refers to the poor law 1946 and to the Curtis Report these are worth a gander as 

he states that "the first reaction of any government in economic difficulties is to cut spending on those services used by children and young people that is health education and family support mechanisms."

So without Committed relationships in or out of marriage it is probably not too far fetched to suggest that, whilst not relying on one person to meet all needs it is necessary to define the needs and maintain monogamous relationships..

I feel quite peeved that even though i am committed that i probably will never reach a silver wedding anniversary i managed 20 before he died and as i am older i probably will not manage 25 in this one. its possible but unlikely.

Waterangel

Pursuing the themes of embodiment and of the doctrine of the Trinity, this article on "marriage as a discipline of sanctification" discusses it as a state for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. In making his argument, the author relies chiefly on the scriptures and other sources from the Christian East, and answers criticisms of marriage from both the left and the right. Readers will discover connections to other current threads.

Sanctification through marriage, making holy a union that would not be holy otherwise??

I am not sure, i think it is more about the way a relationship is conducted rather than whether the "joining of in marriage" is the criteria for sanctification. Of course  Marriage implies order, the order in which things should be done. In the same way as reproduction and the way that that should/could be done. If only everything in life were so simple, people would not die prematurely and there would not be childless couples and the erickson lifecycle would be the only working model, but even the characters in the bible did not follow the erickson life cycle. So does this suggest that if development of people and relationships are out of order rather than disorderly that they are not sanctified ??I dont think so.

We/I am holy not becuase we/i am joined in matrimony to someone else or even because we are/ i am pure, /we are/ I am holy because i believe in Jesus and i want to serve Jesus with all my imperfections, I can take my wretched self whereever i like with the values of christ within me and it is amazing what happens..For none of us do it alone, we can be in relationship with christ on one level and in relationship with others on another level. Sactification occurs when our relationship with Christ becomes the motivating force in our personal lives and subsequently relationships. That in my understanding is the embodiment of Christ

Angela

Matrimony - Marriage - is a holy and honourable estate, according to the BCP, signifying mystical union, adorned by Christ.

The process of being married and becoming more so, as opposed to 'just a piece of paper' as so much wooly thinking puts it, can under God be a means of grace, given the co-operation of the couple with God and each other.

I still remember a sermon 40 years ago by Professor HEW Turner which touched on this, and I am more and more sure that he is right. It is sad all round when it doesn't happen or when a marriage fails, but it CAN be like that. 

The definition of Marriage , is based on the bible and the fact that God put on the earth one man who from him was created the woman who would then ONLY because they sinned and disobeyed would procreate. ONLY because they sinned were they aware of nakedness and emotion. Yes God who took "pleasure" in the creation of the earth and human beings. God was naturally disappointed even angry because Adam and Eve disobeyed , at this point he left them to their own devices until such a time, as was recognised in Isaiah that he saw the need to give a fallen people hope. By the deutro times many generations had come and gone and the new generations were indeed paying the price for previous generations disobedience.

To be a living sacrifice I am wondering in my heart of hearts what does that mean for the clergy and their role in the country and in the world in regards to "same sex unions" I am wondering if in this situation it is for the clergy to put their own thoughts aside offering them to God to perform marriage ceremonies or should they not be "forced" to comprimise their own commitment before the lord "word and deed" by bringing together in union with a blessing two people of the same sex. I then thought about "in the world not of the world" Is it possible for a clergyman to be in the world not of the world, i believe it is, indeed many of us are in worlds which we are not part of.

Then i asked the question , is it possible for a comprimise to be reached, is it possible for the clergy to remain true to their own views and be able to offer a service of union, I believe it is. Using a church building for the purpose of same sex marriage is a hurdle, for such clergy but not an in/unsurmountable one. Many of the miracles and healings and blessings which Jesus gave were outside of the "holy place/temple/church" However during the time that Jesus used them they "became holy" they were sactified through grace. Really was anywhere that Jesus preached completely sanctified, i dont think so he made it that way. So following that line of reasoning it seems to me, that an agreement at the synod as to who is available to perform same sex marriage and who is not is one way of saving some from comprimising themselves and the blessing of the altar before usage is a way of sanctifying it for the individual clergy. Buildings are special yes they are, but they are not as important as the purpose for which they are used. The purpose of the Church building is to bring people before christ as they are. If how they are is part of a same sex couple then that is how they are. The sacrifice "the living sacrifice" for the clergy in this is for the time that the church building is "public" that they lead people to Christ "just as they are" It is no sacrifice in their personal time with God as when as clergy you kneel before the Lord who takes you just as you are!..

Is it possible to define marriage, in the same way as it was designed to be, when it fell at the first hurdle.?

Angela