posted on February 27, 2004 03:30:19 PM new
While reading Logansdad's thread on gay marriage, the subject of wedding gowns came up.
I was thinking about how traditional they are. Also, that tradition says that white represents virginity. Since not many are, should white wedding gowns be done away with? If you do choose white and aren't a virgin, is it sacrilegious?
posted on February 27, 2004 04:04:22 PM new
I dont think so kraft. you know they say you dont really know somebody until you live with them? So maybe the white gown symbolizes the end of the virginity to noncommittment? A white gown to me, is bright, clean and hopeful...maybe thats what its supposed to mean. But I've seen brides move into other pastel colors in recent years and look just as lovely, havent you?
posted on February 27, 2004 05:08:55 PM new
actually, the "tradition" of awhite wedding gown only dates back to Victorian times--kicked off by Queen Victoria herself, in fact. Before that time women were married in regular dresses.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 27, 2004 09:36:43 PM new
thanks for that info, bunni
---------------
Since not many are, should white wedding gowns be done away with?
"Done away with?" By whom?
When the time comes that young women don't want that 'dress-of-their-dreams' they will become unpopular/outdated and won't be purchased. And then production will come to a halt.....all on it's own.
Within the past couple of weeks they showed some bridal store that was having a clearance sale on their wedding gowns. The women were going nuts, gathering as many gowns as they could carry.
If you do choose white and aren't a virgin, is it sacrilegious?
I'm sure there are some that think it is and some that don't see it that way. I think this [white = virginity] is another 'tradition' that has slowly fallen by the wayside, with the exception of the very religious.
Out of all my friends who's daughters have married within the past 5-10 years....they all wanted their 'dream' dress....they all chose white....and I'd bet not one was a virgin. But of course I can't prove that.
posted on March 1, 2004 12:44:25 PM new
At one time in history marriages were arranged? When did this tradition stop and what brought about the change?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on March 1, 2004 01:39:47 PM new
Interesting posts. I've always thought that marriage was some sacred thing from the Bible. If it's not, how does religion figure in to marriages?
posted on March 1, 2004 03:42:24 PM new
Good one, Kraftdinner. Isn't it interesting how easily "tradition" which as been stated as a reason against marriage for gays can be abandoned so easily when it comes to the question of virginity as it relates to the sanctity of marriage.
I suppose tradition is really not all that important after all.
posted on March 1, 2004 04:16:07 PM new
That's what I was thinking too, Helen. I'm sure I've heard Bible quotes about marriage and how pure it all is, but if the term didn't come about until the 1700's, is it possible the Bible's been misinterpreted (to suit the times)?
posted on March 1, 2004 04:34:41 PM new
I'm sure that's the case.Tradition lingers past it's usefulness as we can see in this case and of course in the tradition of only man-woman marriages.
Most people have adjusted to this change as they will eventually adjust to the marriage of gays.
posted on March 1, 2004 04:37:34 PM new
Based on articles I have read, it seemed like marriages was defined by the society at the times. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 5-10 years in regards to gay marriages.
If people don't like how marraige is defined, maybe we can go back to the way it was 1000's of years ago. I am sure that would suit everyone.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on March 1, 2004 05:21:20 PM new
In the meantime, as long as the government defines marriage as a biological function, the political struggle will continue.
posted on March 1, 2004 05:34:41 PM new
It's a tradition that KERRY, Edwards and this President believe should remain the same. They're all in agreement on marriage being one man and one woman.
edited to add: That is unless Kerry's reversed himself once again on this issue....as is so typical of him in many other areas.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 1, 2004 05:36 PM ]
posted on March 1, 2004 05:37:58 PM new
Logansdad, I see the Bible's interpretations as nothing more than a 'devine' way of controlling people. If the interpretations are written in such a way as to control behavior in one direction or the other, it ends up being just that - a polital book that justifies the behaviours you seek to further your cause. (God seems to be in the shadows, off to the side somewhere.) To even believe that we need vote-able permission to get married in the first place is mind control at it's best. I think God wants us all to get to the point where we don't need others telling us what's right or wrong, don't you?
posted on March 2, 2004 09:17:07 AM new
kraft:
I think the Bible also mentions pologamy. I am a little hazy on my references but I could have sworn there are passages of somebody having mutliple wives.
In a nutshell we can't take every word from the bible litteraly.
If marriage is supposed to be a union of two people in the eyes of God. Why do they need a marriage license? Is it just another way for the local governments to tax people and be source of income?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on March 2, 2004 10:07:04 AM new
Toronto has a gay wedding show on now and it's predicted to be a huge business for wedding marketers.
Fab's Mr. Raphael puts it another way. "The wedding industry, your florists and caterers, is a pretty gay industry, period," he says. "The wedding has always been gay."
Many write their own vows now...... everything changes over time and it seems like half the population goes along with it and the other half tries to fight it all the way.
posted on March 2, 2004 10:29:33 AM new
I like this one - I remember when I was young, white always symbolized virginity when it came to the wedding dress. If there was a hint that the bride/groom had to get married because they got prego, it was cause for scandal & gossip. This was the 1970's. Not that long ago really.
Now you see people who are getting married a second time having a big wedding, complete with an expensive white dress, go figure.
So that traditional idea has changed.
As far as the Bible is concerned it has been translated as the men of old saw fit. The more I talk to a minister friend of mine and remembering back to the theologians I had in college, some of the translated text was tranlated for the times. For example, my understanding is this: There were many women's names in the New Testament, women who had leadership roles and those names were changes to men's names hundreds of years ago because women of the time were not supposed to be in leadership roles.
There were also supposedly books that were left out of the Bible because they weren't deemed fit for the New Testament. My friend just told me this the other day & I know I've read it somewhere - I'll try to find the reference. A person has to have a good working knowledge of Hebrew & Greek, which my friend does, to understand the changes that occured when the Bible was translated, and then translated again, and again.
So as far as 'tradition' goes, HA. Traditions change, they always have and always will.
And logansdad - I think in some countries, not sure which ones, some marriages are still arranged.
And it would be interesting to find out when the government stepped in concerning marriages. Or has it always been that way? hmmmm.
posted on March 2, 2004 11:47:19 AM new
Isn't that interesting, mlb618? People following Bible rules that aren't really Bible rules at all. It gives new meaning to the word sheep.
posted on March 2, 2004 04:39:41 PM newIt's a tradition that KERRY, Edwards and this President believe should remain the same. They're all in agreement on marriage being one man and one woman.
If these candidates want to focus on the traditional definition of marriage that is fine by me. But they also have to remember the traditional definition of marriage is also not have sex before the wedding, not having kids before they are married, not cheating on your partner and not getting a divorce.
Perhaps they should also be conveying this to the straight community.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
[ edited by logansdad on Mar 3, 2004 09:10 AM ]
posted on March 3, 2004 03:55:22 AM new
Kraft - I know. I spent the first 20 years or so of my life in Christian schools, all the way thru college and church. I, quite honestly, hold respect for the Bible. At some point tho' I feel as an adult one must not have a blind faith, but a questioning faith. So I ask a lot of questions now and have been. I think that the men who translated the Bible were not infalliable and were quite human enough to leave books of the Bible out and change names & events to suit the times.
I dunno, the whole idea of the tradition of marriage that is being held on so fervently by the 'christians' of today quite frankly scares me. I said to my mom the other day that if Pres. Shrub wants to ammend the constitution then fine, but then he darn well better include in that NO Divorces anymore. You know, for the sanctity of marriage and all.
She knows I'm not serious because see I didn't grow up in one of those traditional marriages & families. I grew up in a home that had domestic violence as a norm and in a time that no one ever talked about it. Thank god my parents divorced! So I think that everytime the Pres. brings up traditional values etc. I could just scream. To me it's like a slap in the face to the way I was raised.
Ok, just realized how long this is - thanks for letting me vent.
Hey logansdad - isn't the Pres. doing that concerning educating heteros about marriage? Isn't he spending millions of tax dollars to show heteros how great marriage is? Or is that still in the works? I don't remember if it's been implemented or not yet.
[ edited by mlb618 on Mar 3, 2004 03:58 AM ]
posted on March 3, 2004 09:13:26 AM new
MLB:
Hey logansdad - isn't the Pres. doing that concerning educating heteros about marriage? Isn't he spending millions of tax dollars to show heteros how great marriage is? Or is that still in the works? I don't remember if it's been implemented or not yet.
I haven't heard anything about this. The only thing I have heard from Bush is his willingness to protect "the sanctity of marraige" for the straights. To me that is election promises and not any type of education.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on March 3, 2004 09:39:36 AM new
Logansdad - I found a couple of articles on it - it's a marriage initiative that Bush started and was a part of his faith-based program, which I don't think ever got passed.
This paragraph comes from one article I found and can be read in full with the link following it.
"The initiative has two basic components. The first is the proposed legislation, first introduced into the Congress in 2002, that would specifically allocate federal funds for marriage education and promotion as part of TANF re-authorization, or welfare reform. (Strengthening marriage as a part of the TANF program dates from the welfare reform law of 1996 signed by President Clinton.) The second component consists of several marriage research, evaluation, training, and demonstration projects initiated in 2001 by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services."
The second article is at this link: http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=632
Basically from what I quickly read is that Bush wanted to spend tax money to educate the poor, i.e. welfare people about marriage etc. as if this would help them to better their lives somehow.
posted on March 3, 2004 11:41:01 AM newas if this would help them to better their lives somehow.
And it would, imo.
The family has traditionally been a secure place for children to be raised.
As we watch the importance of marriage diminish, children are being raised more and more by single women who [normally] have a very small income and therefore turn to our entitlement programs for their support. More and more children are raised without the influence and of a father. It's my belief that this is part of the dicipline problems teachers currently face in their classrooms. Too many single parents trying to deal with raising too many children on their own....without a spouse.
Men haven't been given the credit they deserve for their important part of raising a child. And with more and more absent fathers....we're seeing the effect of that in our society.
I haven't read the latest stats but there for a while we had men going around impregnating many women, and most of those women turned to welfare.
Now...things have been changing. The states/county's are going after the fathers for child support. That costs a ton of money....and if the father has no job or has 10 children as offsprings there's no way he can pay to help support all those children.
Finally having a President that feels supporting marriage, for the benefit of our society, is a good thing, imo.
posted on March 3, 2004 12:35:30 PM new
President "Shrub" -
Your posts are pretty interesting MLB. That's all a few of us have been trying to say to others - don't trust everything you read and use common sense. But blind faith in the Bible seems better than no faith at all to most religious people here, and anyone that questions the validity of the Bible is called a Bible-basher.
When things don't make sense, like they seem to do for people that live by the Bible, and you question it or choose to live differently, you're automatically labled a sinner or you're going to Hell, or God will punish you for running astray, etc. It's like you're allowed to question things as long as it leads you back to the Godly conclusion.
For me, if most of the world believes in religious teachings, and that's been what's shaped our civilization, wouldn't the world be in great shape by now instead of the most corrupt in history? How can we move ahead without questioning what the foundation of our life is built on if we see it isn't working?
posted on March 3, 2004 01:00:42 PM newThe family has traditionally been a secure place for children to be raised.
Linda, that's what many believe and they have that "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" image in their minds. In reality there were lots of dysfunctional families in the 50's and 60's and many of those children grew up and didn't succeed at marriage.
People no longer stay in unhappy marriages "for the sake of the children" like they used to. It's not a secure place for children when they see their parents unhappy or fighting all the time. I think more fathers are taking an active role in being responsible for their children than ever before, whether they are married or not. I think that all children should have a male role model, especially boys and I feel sad for the ones that grow up without one.
I don't think a marriage certificate, for the sake of tradition, is what makes a couple better parents.
Linda, that's what many believe and they have that "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" image in their minds.
Image in their minds? I don't agree. There are millions of marriages where people still hold to the committments they made when they married. Happy homes where a couples choose to work their problems out and don't run at the first sight of trouble. And where children feel secure in both parents love, have both parents attention and are more stable emotionally and financially.
In reality there were lots of dysfunctional families in the 50's and 60's and many of those children grew up and didn't succeed at marriage. I agree, but I don't believe they represented the majority of marriages.
People no longer stay in unhappy marriages "for the sake of the children" like they used to. It's not a secure place for children when they see their parents unhappy or fighting all the time. I agree. What I'm saying is that too many aren't willing to work out problems. Problems can be worked out without 'all the fighting'....people can discuss problems without screaming and yelling.
And that's what President Bush has stated he wants to see. More couples being trained on how to deal with conflict in positive ways. What's wrong with that?
I think more fathers are taking an active role in being responsible for their children than ever before, whether they are married or not.
I agree there are more now than there were, but they are too few in numbers to make much of a difference, imo. Because there are millions of children on our welfare rolls who obviously don't have fathers supporting them.
I think that all children should have a male role model, especially boys and I feel sad for the ones that grow up without one. I agree and think that's where programs like Big Brother's and Big Sister's come into play. But nothing replaces the love, personal presense and financial contributions of both parents.
I don't think a marriage certificate, for the sake of tradition, is what makes a couple better parents. I disagree here. A marriage certificate means a committment has been made. Living together...anyone walks when ever they wish....no hassles. No stopping to at least try to work problems out. Just leave. And our country's history does show marriage brought more stability to children and they have now with all the 'different' methods of cohabitation we have now.
I have a lot of trouble understanding how a president, any president encouraging marriage, especially to the very poor and government dependent people is harmful to anyone.
And if the tradition of marriage is so 'unimportant' now, why do so many people remarry? Why do gays/lesbians want to marry?
posted on March 3, 2004 02:07:43 PM new
the original question about the White Wedding gown, well, in China, where the population is NOT a Christian majority. I'm sure there are Christians there,but far from the majority... they have, for the last decade or so (maybe, probably? longer) brought the 'tradition' of a flowing white wedding gown to their country. I only know this by my SIL, who relayed this to me... its a BIG thing there to get a white wedding gown to be married in over there. She is from mainland China. Not sure exactly how long this has caught on, but it has. And it has nothing at all to do with 'purity' 'virginity' or the Bible
As for getting married vs living together. Mikes company has had, for quite awhile now, the 'domestic partner plan' for insurance. (Yes it was started for the gays that work there) so I've heard a lot of big corps are doing the same.
I like the idea of the white wedding gown. Whether someone is remarrying or first...... has nothing to do with 'purity' to me, just tradition, and there are some traditions that are just a good thing.
(well the one tradition I don't like is the Brides parents paying for the Big Event.... I don't like that one, and they can throw that one out, and soon!!!! )
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
