I rather Hitchens over dawkins. Because his debating manner was a lot better. Dawkins can be rather aggressive at times. Though Stephen fry is the most polite atheist debater in my opinion. This however isn't about that.

I would not get married to I am at least 25. Under normal circumstances that is. At least my mum isn't an extremely picky person. Some parents choose to dislike there sons/daughters partners. My mum has liked my sisters boyfriend and my brothers girlfriend/s.

Dawkins is incredibly aggressive. I'm fine with someone not wanting to talk God but they don't have to be a monster about it. Stephen Fry, I disagree with, but he's a lot of fun and seems like he'd be great company.

I can let you know many atheists don't like Dawkins( I don't exactly dislike him but I don't like his way of going about things). I tend to be a calm person most of the time and don't really care what other people believe as long as it isn't directly affecting me. Stephen fry is my favourite tv host after Adam hills. They are both nice people.

Anyway I really must get back on topic. What would you like your wedding ceremonies to be like. I am hardly a traditional person, so I am unlikely to get married in a church. I am unlikely to pick the traditional style of clothing either.

If I may chime in...my mother was first married (back when she was still a Roman Catholic) to a Muslim man from the Middle East. She agreed to convert to Islam but a few weeks into the marriage, her Catholic upbringing was strong enough for her to feel going in that direction wasn't right. Despite her refusing to convert, they still stayed married for the next 2 years. They did eventually divorce but it had nothing to do with religious differences. (It is worthy to note, both of them were not serious at all about their religions. Having my mom convert was just a formality for traditions sake.)

My mom and my dad have been married 23 years this month. My mom - at the beginning of their marriage - became a born-again Christian (and later in life, a Lutheran, which she still remains to this day); my dad is an atheist. My dad also thinks pastors/priests/etc are all con men and tithing is just supporting "the biggest mafia scam the world has ever known". On a daily basis, he pokes fun at our faith (I was raised as a Lutheran...he was okay with me going to private Lutheran school because he knew it would instill good morals in me even if I did end up believing differently than him; he is still very conservative and old fashioned [in fact my mom and I are even more liberal than he is] so he approved of the morals being taught).

My mom and I pray for his soul every night. It's hard in that aspect. Very hard to deal with emotionally. But as for as "realities" are concerned, my parents have very similar worldviews nonetheless and make a good team. They love each other and rely on each other. It's not the most ideal but it works. It's possible. But they married when my mom wasn't seriously about religion at all.

I don't think I could marry someone non-Christian. My spirituality is the most important thing in my life and my husband would have to put up with me always wanting to talk about it, praying, reading Scripture, reading books about scripture, attending to my home altar, going to church, etc.

When my parents married they were both agnostics. My mum is now an atheist and dad..... he doesn't talk about such things. So my guess he is still agnostic. As for the rest of my family there are a few Christians and atheists but mostly agnostics. There has never been feuds in my family about religion. I was bought up to make my own choice. They ave been together for 26 years.( They do have some small disagreements about Australian politics).

As for myself and my older brother and sister we are all atheists. I tend to not mention this when possible at family gatherings because I don't like debating. I have no plans to change peoples beliefs endless they ask me about evolution etc.( Yes I converted my mother). This is why it wouldn't work if I married someone that wasn't an atheist/agnostic. I wouldn't want to convert them if they were not willing and there isn't much chance they could convert me.

Wagawaga and mm however have situation where it has worked.

Wagga, I'm not having a go at you. I realise that there are some cases where it works, but most of the time, these marriages don't seem to last. I didn't mean to suggest that the Christian would become a pagan if they were married to a non-Christian, but more often than not, it seems to happen. At least with the people I know. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, that certainly wasn't my intention. You're doing well! Praise God!

No, I wasn't offended. Up to a point I agree with you, that the sort of marriages you refer to, don't always last. Either one or the other set of beliefs might predominate, so that both partners cease to be different, and, as mm1991 points out, there is the role played by family and what is tradition. But I doubt that dissimilar religious beliefs is the only reason why such mixed marriages do not work. Often there are other dynamics at work.

I do hope you do find someone who can share your religious beliefs, but I think it doesn't do to be too dogmatic within marriage, even if you do marry someone who is Christian. No two people are alike, nor do they believe alike. And, apart from core Christian tenets, there are certain practices in some Christian denominations that I would be loth to agree with, such as the celibacy of priests, or unitarianism.

My grandmother, who was married to two Catholic men, declined to become a Catholic herself, on either occasion, and refused to marry either in the Catholic church. Nevertheless, she always served fish on Fridays, in compliance with her second husband's beliefs. Nor did she stop him going to Mass, until the nuns rather tactlessly informed her she wasn't married properly. As far as my grandmother was concerned, since her marriage was legal and valid with the Government, it should also be legal with the church, no matter which one she went to.

And just because I do agree that evolution is a process that explains much about nature, doesn't mean I am going to happily go along with an agnostic, or the likes of Richard Dawkins, who insist on denying the existence of God, on that basis. Two years ago I went to the Tutenkhamen exhibition, held at the Melbourne Museum. Before we went home, we also viewed there a Rio Tinto display which said that at one stage the Earth was nothing more than a giant frozen snowball which at some point was melted by volcanic activity. Whatever came first, a volcanic mess, or a giant Snowball, "the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep". But "the spirit of the Lord moved over the face of the Earth" and so things started to happen, according to God's ordering of events, whether in 7 consecutive days or 7 days eons apart from each other, initiating an ongoing process which could have gone very differently at each stage.

There is a first time for everything under the Sun, including being able to view a sunrise for the first time. Science hasn't explained everything, such as where did the Moon come from, though the life of the earth depends on water and the tides influenced by the Moon as we know it. And of all the planets found so far, have we yet found anything so perfect, so rich in resources as the Earth? No, there are too many spheres that have no atmosphere at all, or are little more than masses of hot gases. Which are too big, too small, too anything. Which spin too slowly, too fast, or not at all. There are asteroids made purely of gold, or other elements, and one exoplanet is said to be pure carbon, either diamond or graphite. I never wanted a diamond in an engagement ring that big, does anyone?

And have we found life yet anywhere else in the Universe? Surely what is most miraculous is that there is life at all on this planet, let alone its proliferation? But enough of my ideas, however your own beliefs agree or disagree. It is a good idea to be able to explain clearly and concisely to someone else how much you value God and Jesus Christ. According to some advice I've heard, it is a good idea to be able to respond to frequently asked questions with an arsenal of relevant biblical answers.

One I'd like is the one said often in anger, "To think a so-called Christian would do that". The only one I can think of is a bumper sticker saying "Christians are forgiven, not perfect". That is the real hurdle in a mixed marriage. People having a go at each other.

Sort of off-topics, but ...

waggawerewolf27 wrote:

My grandmother, who was married to two Catholic men, declined to become a Catholic herself, on either occasion, and refused to marry either in the Catholic church. Nevertheless, she always served fish on Fridays, in compliance with her second husband's beliefs. Nor did she stop him going to Mass, until the nuns rather tactlessly informed her she wasn't married properly. As far as my grandmother was concerned, since her marriage was legal and valid with the Government, it should also be legal with the church, no matter which one she went to.

William Kienzle's last book, The Gathering, mentions a mixed couple trying to normalize their marriage as a Catholic marriage. In the context of the book, the characters argue that a first marriage was "an attempted marriage" and therefore counted just enough to cause everyone some difficulty. How it was dealt with causes joy for some and grief for others. (Of course we all know it is just a story!) Although it is labeled as the author's last mystery, it isn't really ... more of a character study and worth a look. (I've read it too.)

As I understand it, most Protestants consider marriage a "common grace," which is why they accept the marriages of nonbelievers (Hindu, pagan, etc.). Then when believers get married, or try to, someone has to opine whether they are "Christian enough" to get married to the satisfaction of the witnesses!

The only one I can think of is a bumper sticker saying "Christians are forgiven, not perfect".

Either "Dear Abby" or her sister Ann Landers commented, "The church isn't a museum for saints; it's a hospital for sinners."

Thank you for both the handy back answer and the book recommendation, which I will read if I can locate it here.

As I understand it, most Protestants consider marriage a "common grace," which is why they accept the marriages of nonbelievers (Hindu, pagan, etc.). Then when believers get married, or try to, someone has to opine whether they are "Christian enough" to get married to the satisfaction of the witnesses!

At a public high school I was told in Anglican scripture that the main difference between Anglicans and Catholics is that whereas the Catholics consider marriage as part of their seven sacraments, the Anglicans restrict sacraments to baptism and ordination. As a rule, wedding services were performed in churches here until World War II, at least, at which time the establishment of registry offices enabled people to marry, regardless of whatever their denomination, religious beliefs or family background might be.

Yes, marriage might be considered a grace in many Protestant churches, but what about marriage between different Protestant denominations? I've heard that in Scotland, at any rate, such marriages were not always considered valid. But with the influx of migrants here, even before Federation in 1901, who was to know who believed what? After the original First Fleet arrived in 1788, until pastors of these churches, or Roman Catholic priests could be found to solemnise such marriages, the general rule was that either people married in the Anglican Church or not at all. Anglican chaplains, of course, were sent out by the UK government as part of the crew and convict administration. Both IlF and W4J may have heard of Samuel Marsden, the hanging parson, who was a magistrate and a sheep farmer when he wasn't a parson.

In those days, convicts who wanted to marry had to get permission from the convict board, and once that permission was granted, it might not be easy to revoke the intended marriage. My grandmother's grandmother, the daughter of a ticket-of-leave woman, was betrothed to a convict called Joseph Wood, but there is no record of the actual marriage taking place, and we never knew what happened to Mr Wood. And so, because of the government records, she could not regularise her common-law marriage to my grandmother's grandfather.

Whilst religion does play an important part in marriage, it is also a legal contract and so everyone who marries has to register the marriage with the Government. Usually, this is part of the service, as in UK, but I have also been to a Hindu marriage, and found myself wondering at that time, through a very long-winded service, when the couple were going to do this. I felt uncomfortable that the legalities were not being observed at all, unlike the social niceties and the traditional Hindu rites, and when the marriage later broke up, I felt my misgivings had been vindicated.

I hope you don't think I am being unreasonable. There are three parts of a wedding. One is the religious/relationship issues part. The second part concerns not only relationships but socially, which is where the partying comes in. It is assumed that people who remember attending a fancy party would recognise the validity of a marriage. And the fancier the marriage, the more social kudos for family respectability, as a rule.

The third part is why we have any sort of marriage in the first place, in any society, in any creed, and in any legal system, even in anti-Christian jurisdictions. It is to legitimise children, clarifying who is related to whom. It is to establish inheritance and ownership, where applicable, and, even without the added complications of dowries and trousseaus, it is also to establish responsibilities and rights within the marriage, especially as regards income, and what happens as a result of death and divorce.

I was always told that 2 Corinthians 6:14 meant - at least on some level - that Christians were not supposed to marry unbelievers.

Regardless of that, I don't believe it's a good idea for Christians to marry non-Christians. I don't mean offence to anyone here who has done so. And as others have said, such a marriage can definitely work, depending on what sort of relationship the husband and wife have. And those Christians who are already married to unbelievers, I think, need to honor their union and stick by each other.

But I don't believe single Christians should seek out or consider marrying non-Christians. One of the biggest parts of marriage, at least from everything I've learned about it, is that the husband is supposed to be the spiritual leader of the household. If the husband was an unbeliever, this would not work of course. And if the wife was not a believer, he would be forcing his religion on her if he tried to set himself up as the spiritual leader of the household. And there's also the issue of what the couple would teach their children concerning the faith. I plan on teaching Christianity as a fact to my children. If my husband was an unbeliever, he might have problems with that. Basically, Christianity is the biggest thing in a believers life. If I was married to an unbeliever, then one of the things I couldn't share with him would be the one thing that was most important.

I felt uncomfortable that the legalities were not being observed at all, unlike the social niceties and the traditional Hindu rites, and when the marriage later broke up, I felt my misgivings had been vindicated.

I hope you don't think I am being unreasonable. There are three parts of a wedding. One is the religious/relationship issues part. The second part concerns not only relationships but socially, which is where the partying comes in. It is assumed that people who remember attending a fancy party would recognise the validity of a marriage. And the fancier the marriage, the more social kudos for family respectability, as a rule.

The third part is why we have any sort of marriage in the first place, in any society, in any creed, and in any legal system, even in anti-Christian jurisdictions. It is to legitimise children, clarifying who is related to whom. It is to establish inheritance and ownership, where applicable, and, even without the added complications of dowries and trousseaus, it is also to establish responsibilities and rights within the marriage, especially as regards income, and what happens as a result of death and divorce.

I believe couples should get legally married for two reasons. One, I believe Christians should follow the law of the land as best as they can; and legal marriage is built into our law. Two, it makes it easier for everyone, in terms of records, wills, etc., to be legally married.

However, I don't believe a couple needs to be legally married in order for their marriage to be valid - in their own eyes or in God's eyes. And I certainly don't believe it's a sign the marriage will fail. After all, we can't say Adam and Eve weren't really married just because there was no pastor around to officiate it. Likewise, if I was stranded on a desert island with only my fiance and there was little to no hope of being rescued, I don't believe that would mean he and I would have to die single and never marry each other. We could say our vows to each other privately, just the two of us on the island. I believe God would see that and honor that, even though there was no pastor and no official documentation.

~Riella

It seems there are many dissenting ideas about what constitutes a legal marriage, why it is necessary, legally at any rate, how it is defined, the rights of people who prefer a de-facto arrangement, without the religious niceties, and even how many people should be in the marriage. In a state where bigamy is illegal, I'm aware of non-Christian people who would push to make it possible for a man to have up to four wives legally, though they wouldn't consider for a moment extending such privileges to women. Our social services don't recognise any marriage arrangement, in particular. They expect disclosure, but otherwise are mainly interested in who considers themselves as "partners", and who are not. My misgivings about my workmate's marriage, where there was no signing of the marriage register, concerned the possibility of her being used in some kind of immigration racket, which would be against the law.

I don't believe single Christians should seek out or consider marrying non-Christians.

The text you quoted, 2 Corinthians 6:14, was written in a time when people had very little choice about whom they were married to. Women, in particular, had to marry the blokes their families selected for them, to preserve property, social position, and, if possible, to advance family wealth and prospects. This was the situation right up to WW2 in many societies, even Christian ones, where regular churchgoing was the norm for both men and women. But today, you might find that advising Christian girls to go to church, or church activities, to meet prospective partners, is not such a good idea, when there is a heavily imbalanced ratio of available young men to the girls there. Especially when the girls have, in all likelihood, been given the same parental advice about what a respectable Christian lady should aspire to.

It is also a bad idea when of the few young men available at church, at least one has the courting habits of a male koala, meaning they only converse in the most laconic of grunts, that is, when they can be bothered, acts as if even a suitably washed and spruced-up young female should be doused in disinfectant (eucalyptus, of course) before they want anything to do with her, can't wait to gravitate to male company at any social occasion, and generally behaves as if they'd rather be left alone to snooze happily whilst watching footy on TV.

And if you do meet an interested bloke, elsewhere, how will you know if he really means what he says about his beliefs? In order to "catch" me, my dear hubby went to church with me, went to choir practice with me, even sang in the church choir and went on houseparties with me. Decades later, when I told his siblings about his activities, they still shake their heads in shocked and amused disbelief. As the Bible says, in Proverbs 30 There are three things which are too wonderful for me, Four which I do not understand ...the way of a man with a young woman. But whilst his pre-marriage churchgoing seemed to be mainly a means to an end, people's beliefs do change over time.

On another note, which I'd like to share with you, we joined a club where some of us put on a play last June for the end-of-financial year meeting. Hubby was cast as Fred, who partnered Charlie as comic fill-ins whilst scenes were changed. One of these 'fill-ins' went something like this:

Fred: Hullo, Charlie, you seem to have a bruise on your forehead.
Charlie: Oh it was just a glancing blow
Fred: A glancing blow?
Charlie: Yes, my missus caught me glancing at a buxom blonde.
Fred: Ah, women can be difficult. My dad gave me gave me five good tips about the sort of woman to find.
Charlie: And what are they?
Fred: He told me, firstly, that it is important that a woman can cook, clean, help around the house and have a job.
Charlie: I can see that would be useful
Fred: Secondly, it is important that a woman can make you laugh
Charlie: I'd like that!
Fred: Thirdly, it is important that a woman should be someone you can trust
Charlie: I can trust my missus!
Fred: Fourthly, it is important that a woman is a good lover
Charlie: I'll have to think about that one.
Fred: Fifthly, it is most important that these four women do not know each other.

We coached "Fred" whilst he learned his lines, and enjoyed his final, triumphant, stage appearance, immensely. Yesterday was his birthday. Our youngest daughter's birthday card to him read as follows:

A clever woman knows that it is important to find...
1. A man who is a perfect lover and attentive to your every need
2. A man who is a good wage earner and helps around the house
3. A man who is an amusing companion and makes you laugh
4. A man who is honest, trustworthy and loyal.
It is also very important that these four men do not know each other.

Happy birthday (78th) to her Dad.

As well as a nice shiny golden halo about his head, the man on the card, depicted as "honest, trustworthy and loyal", was wearing a ball and chain on his ankle as he read the newspaper, whilst sitting in a comfortable armchair.

The text you quoted, 2 Corinthians 6:14, was written in a time when people had very little choice about whom they were married to. Women, in particular, had to marry the blokes their families selected for them, to preserve property, social position, and, if possible, to advance family wealth and prospects. This was the situation right up to WW2 in many societies, even Christian ones, where regular churchgoing was the norm for both men and women. But today, you might find that advising Christian girls to go to church, or church activities, to meet prospective partners, is not such a good idea, when there is a heavily imbalanced ratio of available young men to the girls there. Especially when the girls have, in all likelihood, been given the same parental advice about what a respectable Christian lady should aspire to.

I don't advise girls to look for spouses only at church events. But I do definitely advise them to marry someone with the same beliefs they have. Especially if they, like me, adhere to the idea that their husband is meant to be their spiritual leader.

It is also a bad idea when of the few young men available at church, at least one has the courting habits of a male koala, meaning they only converse in the most laconic of grunts, that is, when they can be bothered, acts as if even a suitably washed and spruced-up young female should be doused in disinfectant (eucalyptus, of course) before they want anything to do with her, can't wait to gravitate to male company at any social occasion, and generally behaves as if they'd rather be left alone to snooze happily whilst watching footy on TV.

If all the available men at my church were that sort of person, I definitely wouldn't marry any of them. Of course, there's no rule that says that all the men at a church are going to be like that. Even more importantly, just because someone intends to marry a Christian man, that doesn't mean they have to meet him at church. There are many ways to meet people.

And if you do meet an interested bloke, elsewhere, how will you know if he really means what he says about his beliefs?

Anyone can lie about anything. That's why it's very important for us single girls to get to know a man very well before marrying him. Have talks with him, get to know his beliefs, his family, his background, etc. It's one of the most important decisions we can make, so it's definitely not something I'd want to rush into. I wouldn't marry a man until I had been seriously dating him for at least two years. Probably even longer.

~Riella

, like me, adhere to the idea that their husband is meant to be their spiritual leader.
~Riella

I believe in equal relationships( No one is the leader). I wouldn't marry someone that I had to lead or they had to lead me.

So, I ended up getting married this past summer, and thought maybe I would pass by here and post a few thoughts on the subject of Twue Wuve.

1) Everyone said the "first year is the hardest" but I'm still waiting...Maybe it's just because I was so stressed and over worked before the wedding, but we've barely fought and get along splendidly more then at any other point in our relationship!

2) I think there's three important facets of a marriage/relationship and that if one suffers, they all do. Those three would be...Friendship, Romantic/Sexual, and Partner/Business. First ones are pretty obvious, the last one I think of as the "life planning, finance, every day chore" category. When my husband and I are functioning well in all of those categories, we're great! But when I notice that somethings a bit out of shape in one then it kind of sucks in all the other areas too.

3) Just since this is a idea that seems to come up in this thread often, and ilovefauns brought it up above, before we got married, Sam and I talked extensively about what our expectations were about eachother's roles in our marriage. Thankfully, from the get-go we were both in total agreement that we wanted our marriage to really function as a partnership, not as a hierarchy (with one of us in "veto-power" or "leadership" above the other [ not saying that can't be healthy in a relationship! we just didn't want that ] ). We bounce ideas off eachother, divide up the household tasks based on who likes to do what (he likes to cook, I like to clean), and when we disagree about major or minor things we discuss with eachother to come to a conclusion with the mindset of "how can I submit to you in this situation")

I haven't had any other really startling revelations regarding marriage, unfortunatly I guess my main advice to anyone who ever would like to get married is to talk talk talk talk before it happens. Especially about awkward subjects that are too often left for the pre-martial counsoling (you don't want to be figuring out your views on birth control in front of someone else) or for the wedding night. But also just things like expectations, what you both think about compromise, things you liked and disliked about your parents marriages, what money means to you, how much time you expect to spend with your spouse/other people/having people in your home (something to think about if one of you is different extrovert/introvert wise)...basically anything. My husband and I talked sooooo much, especially after we got engaged, so thankfully by the time we got married/did premarital counsoling we'd covered pretty much every topic and while the counsoling wasn't a waste of time it was nice to not have any crazy surprises.
And so far one of the only surprises in our marriage life was that he didn't like the glow from my alarm clock Some things you can't plan for...

Congratulation, Valiant_Lucy on your marriage! So good to hear it's going smoothly. I hope my future marriage someday turns out as successful as yours.

I have a question. It might be a bit of an odd question, and I wasn't sure whether to post it here or on the writing thread. But since the emphasis on my question lies on the marriage aspect of it, I decided to post it here.

I'm an author. And many of my books are either romantic in theme, or contain romance subplots. And a huge part of writing (and reading, for that matter) is stepping into the shoes of the heroine, feeling what she feels, falling in love with who she falls in love with, and living as her while writing (or reading) the book. So, I often "fall in love" with my male characters right along with my female character. I'll even model some of my male MCs based on how I picture the sort of man I'd like to be with someday.

Having never been in a relationship, I've only experienced this writing process as a single person. What I'm wondering is, how will this work someday when I'm married? Most of all, is it a sin, or "emotional adultery" to "fall in love" with your fictional characters while you're married? When I think about it, it feels weird to me to imagine a married person "falling in love" with a fictional character, or getting emotionally involved in a fictional romance. Yet, at the same time, people don't stop reading, writing, or watching stories just because they get married; and it seems a little drastic and unrealistic to imagine that they remain emotionally distant during all romance stories, and purposely try not to connect with the characters.

A big part of fandoms, or stories in general, is connecting with the characters, living their lives vicariously, feeling their emotions, etc. It's also a big part of fandoms to get "crushes" on characters, "ship" different couples, etc.

Stories are a big part of my life. But I also hope to marry someday. I don't want my future marriage to get in the way of my writing career or reading enjoyment. And I also don't want my writing or reading to cause any sin or problems in my marriage. So, how does this work for married people? Am I looking into it too deeply?

~Riella

Ithy, I definetly noticed even after a few months of dating that I focused less on "shipping" characters, or "fangurling" over a character...I think it goes hand in hand though with also just noticing the opposite sex differently.
Like for example if I'm walking down the street now, I might see a guy and recognize that he's attractive, but it wouldn't be on my radar in at all the same way as before I was in a relationship. If I think about it sometimes I might realize "hmm, the Val of two years ago would have been interested", or for a non-reality example, "The Val of two years ago would definetly be looking up fanfiction for that "shipping"".
My husband once told me he realized that his idea of an attractive woman had changed to be more qualities I had. For example, in his opinion I am physically fit, and he said something about noticing some lady on the metro that had "good muscle tone" that reminded him of me. Or perhaps we would be watching a film together, and he would point of some physical or character trait of a female character he liked and mention how he thought I shared that.
And I'd say the same for how I view "attractive" men...generally, the better looking a guy is, chances are he probably looks similair to my husband, or dresses similairly, or shares character traits, or some such thing.
I also think it's possible to get excited about a opposite-sex fictional character in a way that's not jeopardizing your current real life relationship.
I don't know if that answered your question or not, as I'm not a writer, but I do think the way you view the opposite sex changes after a while of being in a serious relationship. Or at least, I think it should.