Is religion important in loving a person?

[kiki1982]

Well that might be true. But statistically speaking divorce rates were lower.

Well of course divorce rates were lower... If one is not allowed to divorce, one stays married. The question is not whether people stayed married, the question is whether people were happy together.

Beside that there is an issue with the institution of marriage. Lynne Fees mentioned that it was rather about purchasing a mate, which was not true all of the time (marriages out of love were made), but the institution 'marriage' did imply a family unit with children exclusively from the pater familias (what man would want to care for the off-spring of possibly another? It is still an issue and the reason why it is more difficult for a woman with children to find another man than it is for a woman without children to find one) and recognised by everyone.

But the marriage purely out of love is a fairly new phenomenon. Before a marriage was something to unite families, a political tool or even diplomatic. The Dukes of Burgundy were very good at that. Cleopatra was not afraid to do it first with Ceasar and than with Mark Anthony, if it could save her empire. Unfortunately it did not, but it could well have worked. The marriage out of love and love itself became a real obsession when the Romantics took over literature and poetry. In the times of Shakespeare tjere used to be love-poetry, ad even before that, but marriage was not really a part of that. Donne wrote poems to his mistress. Marriage was business and love was for outside of that. Marriage produced legitimate children, mistresses preferably produced none, or otherwise they were cared for but did not have real rights. The romantics paired up the two. That is where we get our image from, but maybe it is too rosy. I have the impression it is. Marriage is not being in love which stays for ever! It needs careful attention, like a contract, in order not to break it. Love provides a good base, but living together is not the same as going to your boyfriend and spending the day with him, or even the afternoon. That is I think where most people go wrong. They do not want to try to work things out because they expect it to be a marriage in true romantic style.

Marriage is as old as society is, only our image of it has changed and that is why we divorce and older cultures did not, or rarely.

[JBI]

You have statistics on the divorce rates in the Ancient world to support this contention I presume?

I thought divorce amongst Romans was radically high. Of course, one could say that generally the most feminist, or proto-feminist of cultures seem to have higher divorce rates. Iroquois Divorce rates, for instance, were, supposedly, staggeringly high, to the point that Francis Brooke highly criticized that as an aspect of savagery in her early novel The History of Emily Montague. Perhaps though, this is a western phenomenon. Certainly though, the most misogynist of cultures have lower rates.

[Drkshadow03]

I thought divorce amongst Romans was radically high. Of course, one could say that generally the most feminist, or proto-feminist of cultures seem to have higher divorce rates. Iroquois Divorce rates, for instance, were, supposedly, staggeringly high, to the point that Francis Brooke highly criticized that as an aspect of savagery in her early novel The History of Emily Montague. Perhaps though, this is a western phenomenon. Certainly though, the most misogynist of cultures have lower rates.

Yeah, I heard that too. But I wonder if he had any statistics to back up his claim or if he was just making assumptions.

[Rorshach69]

You have statistics on the divorce rates in the Ancient world to support this contention I presume?

Well in ancient Rome, you needed mutual consent for divorce. Similar to todays society. The difference is the roles women played back then. They were considered property, so what man in his right mind back then would give up someone who cleaned the dwelling, cooked his food, and did many other tasks essential to the home. He had totally dominance over her. So she may be begging for a divorce but it was up to both of them. So that is why i said statistically speaking there were lower divorce rates. Because from what i read there were not a lot of divorce in ancient Rome

[kilted exile]

in loving the person - no

in being able to live with a person happilly - yes, unfortunately

[JBI]

Well in ancient Rome, you needed mutual consent for divorce. Similar to todays society. The difference is the roles women played back then. They were considered property, so what man in his right mind back then would give up someone who cleaned the dwelling, cooked his food, and did many other tasks essential to the home. He had totally dominance over her. So she may be begging for a divorce but it was up to both of them. So that is why i said statistically speaking there were lower divorce rates. Because from what i read there were not a lot of divorce in ancient Rome

Yes, but politically, the citizens at any rate would divorce to get better, more opportune marriages, and in addition to this, there is no real statistic, because divorce was a private, rather than public affair, and could be done on whim, without any legal proceedings. In truth, one merely just needed to separate to get divorced. On that note, one could simply decide they want a different partner, and divorce their wife (as they were still misogynist to an extreme) and run off with the money.

[Ludmila607]

I think I can tolerate another religion person cause I am not dogmatic on religion matters. of course persons tend to look for similarities in values, tastes, beliefs or polithic ideas...it doesnt seem the other must be "Equal..." or must be a" mirror..." but I personally can tolerate differences in some aspects....cause my own beliefs are sincretic
I will never married a mormon!!!!

Or a fascist...

[Lynne Fees]

But the marriage purely out of love is a fairly new phenomenon. Before a marriage was something to unite families, a political tool or even diplomatic. The Dukes of Burgundy were very good at that. Cleopatra was not afraid to do it first with Ceasar and than with Mark Anthony, if it could save her empire. Unfortunately it did not, but it could well have worked. The marriage out of love and love itself became a real obsession when the Romantics took over literature and poetry. In the times of Shakespeare tjere used to be love-poetry, ad even before that, but marriage was not really a part of that. Donne wrote poems to his mistress. Marriage was business and love was for outside of that. Marriage produced legitimate children, mistresses preferably produced none, or otherwise they were cared for but did not have real rights. The romantics paired up the two. That is where we get our image from, but maybe it is too rosy. I have the impression it is. Marriage is not being in love which stays for ever! It needs careful attention, like a contract, in order not to break it. Love provides a good base, but living together is not the same as going to your boyfriend and spending the day with him, or even the afternoon. That is I think where most people go wrong. They do not want to try to work things out because they expect it to be a marriage in true romantic style.

Marriage is as old as society is, only our image of it has changed and that is why we divorce and older cultures did not, or rarely.

I agree with this analysis. I would also add that, if more people had true, unconditional love, marriages would last longer AND be happier!

[Rorshach69]

Yes, but politically, the citizens at any rate would divorce to get better, more opportune marriages, and in addition to this, there is no real statistic, because divorce was a private, rather than public affair, and could be done on whim, without any legal proceedings. In truth, one merely just needed to separate to get divorced. On that note, one could simply decide they want a different partner, and divorce their wife (as they were still misogynist to an extreme) and run off with the money.

Good point, my original point i think was something like a marriage with love lasts just about as long as one without. Mans image of love is way overrated and unjustified usually.

[kiki1982]

But if it is true what JBI says about divorce rates being high amongst the Romans then it is not so much love they valued, but maybe changing politics.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Romans knew very well the importance of family bonds and politics through wives and daughters. I can imagine that when you were married to the wrong woman, you were not really valued in the Senate anymore, possibly even murdered or sent to a far away country. If that problem could be solved by getting rid of your wife, why not?

Or did they just value their women as their slaves? And were they as decadent as is believed?

[lys]

what i really think is that if their relationship is based on true love than there has to be 100% respect in all aspects.....for me love is a blanket that two people decide to knit together, a blanket woven out of the most delicate materials, a colourful blanket patches of colour symbolising the relationship between the two lovers..........love occurs when two people, two individuals, two social beings both with their own lives meet up and bond in every possible way- emotionally, mentally, socially, physically.if you truly love somebody trust is the most important thing... trusting someone so much that you actually let him/her be different from you and trust that person enough that you dont interfeer their religious beliefs even if it is culturally radically different from yours.. coz where there is true love you are able to respect unconditionally without buts......no religion although i am a faithful christian should not get in the way of a loving relationship......i dont think that my God wants me to get hurt because of the different religions......love is a sanctuary and could do radical changes.....

[Lynne Fees]

Your post ended the feuding - focusing on love really helps, doesn't it?

[miss tenderness]

Or will you continue to love this person no matter what religion he/she belongs to?

I belive that likeness and love aren't things which we can contol , stop or continue.

[Buh4Bee]

My husband is an atheist and I love Christ. We have long debates and still sleep in the same bed each night. I think it is doable to be with someone who has different beliefs from you. It keeps things interesting! Keepin' it real!

[dr.nor]

i think it's very important that the person who i love shares with me every thing ,,including religion