Originally, I had envisioned starting off with a bit about me.. as I believe our collective understanding of one another really depends on our ability or sense of clarity in implanting ourselves in each other's worlds.
While the question of when this changed matters little, that shift happened somewhere between last night and this morning.
So I'll come back to the introductions thought in another post.. for now, some random topics:
Were we not just talking about witch trials yesterday? While several of us figuratively alluded to the "witch hunt" aspect of humanity, even in contemporary cultures.. it was still figurative. So I think you can understand why this caught me a bit off guard today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7413268.stm
Marriage seems to be another topic of current interest, and given our first few words on the topic two classes ago, I felt I needed to reopen this box for my own clarity and sense of communication. Please share your thoughts :D
I believe pointing out my interest in this first, is important: I am wildly in love with an incredible angelic woman of magnificent power. More importantly, we share a unique understanding and connection to this world - something I'll continue to expand on in later posts - but a connection that has proven to continually rival and challenge our (us and you) notions or understandings of this place around us.. more succinctly, my view of marriage differs (vastly) from that of our collective understanding.
(oh, Saveria is her name, you'll see it a lot here..)
This is of particular interest partly because we've found these philosophical differences in many other individuals, but mostly because we can sense this as another aspect of the shifting collective consciousness.
What does that all mean?
Our understanding and perceptions of marriage - and relationships in general - is changing.. as is our understanding of, and tolerance for, legal and government intervention into realms they aren't (or don't have to be) welcome.
Let's get analytical and organize our thoughts here a bit:
. the situation of marriage has both personal and legal aspects (e.g. your love for this person(s) is something personal, but there are legal complications.. death/taxes are an example..)
. to what degree have we concatenated our perceptions of these two aspects of marriage?
So where do I fall in and around this mess?
. marriage - the intimate connection between two or more people - is a basic *necessity* of human social interactions. That is to say, this intimate connection can not (and is not, it is just made painful and/or grossly difficult for some, LGBT folks spring to mind..) be denied from *anyone* Again: no single person, group of people, or legal entity, etc etc, has the right (or power..) to deny any human being this necessity.
. marriage - the legal association between two or more people - offers many restrictions and benefits. Unfortunately, the benefits are enough to coerce folks into contributing to a system that is disputably arguable.
Here are some questions:
. do you believe in the freedom of marriage, legal and interpersonal?
. if you do believe this, and thus believe anyone should be legally allowed to married, would you get married? (legally?)
I believe that it is important for us to acknowledge that each of us who participates in this legal system is then supporting it.
I believe in the freedom of marriage. As I understand most governments, marriage is not legally free, therefore, I will not be getting married (legally).
There seems to be a social connection between these two (legal/interpersonal), such that most people who I've discussed this with, do no acknowledge a marriage that hasn't been legally established.
please leave your thoughts.
I've many more, but they're far too jumbled at this point, so is the action of blogging. (and i guess it turned into only two topics, oh well)
~J.Sun
While the question of when this changed matters little, that shift happened somewhere between last night and this morning.
So I'll come back to the introductions thought in another post.. for now, some random topics:
Were we not just talking about witch trials yesterday? While several of us figuratively alluded to the "witch hunt" aspect of humanity, even in contemporary cultures.. it was still figurative. So I think you can understand why this caught me a bit off guard today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7413268.stm
Marriage seems to be another topic of current interest, and given our first few words on the topic two classes ago, I felt I needed to reopen this box for my own clarity and sense of communication. Please share your thoughts :D
I believe pointing out my interest in this first, is important: I am wildly in love with an incredible angelic woman of magnificent power. More importantly, we share a unique understanding and connection to this world - something I'll continue to expand on in later posts - but a connection that has proven to continually rival and challenge our (us and you) notions or understandings of this place around us.. more succinctly, my view of marriage differs (vastly) from that of our collective understanding.
(oh, Saveria is her name, you'll see it a lot here..)
This is of particular interest partly because we've found these philosophical differences in many other individuals, but mostly because we can sense this as another aspect of the shifting collective consciousness.
What does that all mean?
Our understanding and perceptions of marriage - and relationships in general - is changing.. as is our understanding of, and tolerance for, legal and government intervention into realms they aren't (or don't have to be) welcome.
Let's get analytical and organize our thoughts here a bit:
. the situation of marriage has both personal and legal aspects (e.g. your love for this person(s) is something personal, but there are legal complications.. death/taxes are an example..)
. to what degree have we concatenated our perceptions of these two aspects of marriage?
So where do I fall in and around this mess?
. marriage - the intimate connection between two or more people - is a basic *necessity* of human social interactions. That is to say, this intimate connection can not (and is not, it is just made painful and/or grossly difficult for some, LGBT folks spring to mind..) be denied from *anyone* Again: no single person, group of people, or legal entity, etc etc, has the right (or power..) to deny any human being this necessity.
. marriage - the legal association between two or more people - offers many restrictions and benefits. Unfortunately, the benefits are enough to coerce folks into contributing to a system that is disputably arguable.
Here are some questions:
. do you believe in the freedom of marriage, legal and interpersonal?
. if you do believe this, and thus believe anyone should be legally allowed to married, would you get married? (legally?)
I believe that it is important for us to acknowledge that each of us who participates in this legal system is then supporting it.
I believe in the freedom of marriage. As I understand most governments, marriage is not legally free, therefore, I will not be getting married (legally).
There seems to be a social connection between these two (legal/interpersonal), such that most people who I've discussed this with, do no acknowledge a marriage that hasn't been legally established.
please leave your thoughts.
I've many more, but they're far too jumbled at this point, so is the action of blogging. (and i guess it turned into only two topics, oh well)
lots of love.
(yes, I do love you all.)
(yes, I do love you all.)
~J.Sun
5 comments:
I actually had a debate with my dad about marriage this past Sunday. He always refers back to the Oxford English dictionary as the point maker for any of our debates... and as it still stands, the official definition of marriage as stated in the oxford dictionary is a union between a man and a woman.... it Will probably take another 50 years to get that updated.... Marriage.. just a piece of paper that still holds onto rules and laws from crazy religious history.
You know I have a lot to say about about marriage, and don't think this is cowardly, but I return again to the mystery of life and the presence of the spirit in our lives. For example, marriage is very difficult and anyone who may dispute this is a liar. It is difficult because it requires change, deep personal change to succeed. In fact, you must value someone higher than yourself, you must give in to things you don't necessarily believe or admire, and you must, above all, trust something you cannot see with your eyes. Some people have an easier time than others, and it does depend who you choose to be married to, but overall the experience may seem hard, but like all things which require sacrifice- amazing things come out of such a union. Perhaps in our selfish society- where one can purchase children and create life without pain, and easily unload mistakes without delay, this is one of the last traditions that most of us really don't understand. As far as same sex marriage- I really can't see where it would be different- except that many of my gay friends do not want children or traditional relationships.
beautiful thoughts..
to clarify.. I am acknowledging the separation between the government/religious concoction that is marriage, and the beautiful interpersonal relationships we develop that is marriage.
I guess the foundation of my point is simply built off the idea that you may end up developing a lifetime of those relationships, and that too is beautiful.
All too often I witness lives being hurt by these unnecessary follies; our notion that we are all to follow in one particular way about life is a fallacy. our happiness comes from our freedom of individuality and sense of oneness with our peers, not living a life someone else told us to live.
oliver: I'm sure we could discuss the intricacies of language and communication forever :D
I missed this blog until now, and I feel compelled to comment, since both Jason and I are involved in a serious commitment to another person called an "engagment". Although as a young girl I always dreamed of a the fancy princess wedding, big dress and party with hundreds of my "closest" friends...my current interpretation has veered from these notions quite considerably. I determine the word marriage to mean a commitment between two people. The government however sees it differently, and that is where I think opinions begin to collide. The reason being is that much of our law and beliefs in America are based upon the Christian faith.. I mean doesn't the Pledge of allegiance state "one nation under GOD?"
However America is one big melting pot that is made of hundreds of beliefs and ethnicities.. we don't even have a national language! So how can our government reflect so steadily upon the protestant faith that our country was founded upon? Well... politics for one.
But back to the topic at hand: Marriage. Marriage I think should not be defined as one perception or another, it should be treated as a subject heading, not a title. My perception, Jason's perception, and George Bush's perception are all going to be different. The sooner people begin to accept marriage as an interpretive notion that two people are simply committed to each other, the sooner we can move on. What we need the government to recognize is common law, and that should become what now is considered marriage. Marriage needs to remain open for interpretation, allowing it to adapt to each couples individual tastes and needs, allowing people from all walks of life to enjoy and experience what other couples have been able to enjoy for many years.
right on Justina, you've hit my sentiments exactly..
we've confused these two, separate entities (both coincidentally known as "marriage") and are having difficulty in separating them once again..
Post a Comment