You're really, really not getting this but let me keep trying (despite the insult).

As an imaginary scenario, let's say that your wife just had a baby and all is well BUT your wife is really tired. You've been in the hospital for two days straight without much of a break and you want to do two things - go home and get some sleep, then go celebrate with your buddies. You DON'T want another day of hospital food, dealing with nurses and doctors, and smelling antiseptic all day long.

Your wife would like you to stay one more night.

If an honest love is much stronger than what I call a sacrificial love, you'd go home and just do what you want.

If sacrificial love (as found in marriage, by vow) is much stronger, you'll stay there and do what you DO NOT WANT DO TO because you love your wife so much.

See, it's not that you don't want to love - it's that you don't want to always show it as it is needed or required. Marriage places a lot more requirements and needs on your love AND you are obligated to fulfil them. As such, the love must be all the more stronger in order to stand the test.

You do something because you want to do it - how can that require more strength than doing something you don't want to do? Same thing goes for love - a love that continues despite adversity is far stronger than one that only loves as it wishes to love.

Also, your argument is changing (and is irrelevant) because you are now talking about how an ACTION being stronger if it's natural as opposed to forced when the real (and original) argument is whether the LOVE that pushes you to do an action against your preference is stronger than a love that only does what it wishes.

It'd be nice if we always wanted to do what our partner wants.....but we don't. What pushes us to go against our selfishness and do it anyway? Love. That's a truly honest love, for it puts others before itself.

 

One further question...if I were in a relationship where I met each of the criteria that JonBoy or others listed for a virtuous marriage (commitment when I didn't want to, putting my partner first, etc) but I was not married, would it still be a lesser relationship?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by brantshali
I'm not trying to argue, just looking for a clarification.

 

A bit. Between you and magician I get the distinction, but I'm not sure if I agree that you being a Christian gives you a unique ability to understand right from wrong...but I'm also not sure that you specifically said that. I might just be hungry because I haven't had lunch yet, but clarification on that point would be appreciate if you don't mind. Thanks.

 

I think I understand.

To write, ". . . if it is right or wrong . . ." is right, but to write, ". . . if it is write or wrong . . ." is wrong.

I'd better write that down.

Right?

 

If you were committing without wanting to, you'd be in trouble. If you were, out of love for your partner, doing things you didn't feel like, that's a different story.

But to answer your question, I don't think you can have the same relationship as I describe outside of marriage. You certainly can't have it based on my morals and beliefs, as there cannot be a full relationship as a couple outside of marriage. In other words, it wouldn't be virtuous.

Again, marriage (to me) is the pinnacle of male/female relationships. Anything else is lesser...

Just my belief and opinion. I see many people that are caring, loving, tender, etc, etc outside of marriage BUT I sometimes wonder how much more they could be if they were married. Either that or if they'd find out they really DON'T love each other if they got married.

Marriage is the ultimate test of male/female love.






Well, unless you consider a woman wanting you to go shopping for shoes when the Super Bowl is on.

 

Having read all your responses, I now feel terribly bad for casual sex

 

I think I can help with the clarification:

If you haven't had lunch yet, and haven't eaten since breakfast or before, you're definitely hungry.

If you haven't had lunch yet, but you've snacked during the morning, or you have had lunch, you're not hungry.

(Sorry. I haven't had lunch, yet. )

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by brantshali

 

Or the Sugar Bowl, 2004.

Fight On!