Dating/marrying outside your religion

[Marie]

Originally posted by KSig RC
You missed my point entirely - I was simply saying that these folks are, indeed, being intolerant of other religions IN THEIR POTENTIAL SPOUSES. I did not extend this to a higher level, or anything like that - in fact, I express that in the caveat at the end. r->c->p

My goal was to make a larger point here: the term 'intolerant' has become almost jargon at this point, and the defensiveness over it is sickening. You can be open to other religions all you want, but the reality is that you are perfectly intolerant of other religions in a potential spouse. Now, everyone has eloquently explained rationale behind this, and that's fine - I can respect that, because there's nothing wrong with making that kind of choice for yourself (as long as it doesn't extend past that - like I said before).

But let's not pretend like it's not being intolerant - because in that limited sense, it is implicitly intolerant. It does not limit you from being tolerant or open in other fashions or scenarios - and your post spent about 1000 too many words making that point, although I specifically excluded it before.

Let's remove the defensiveness and negative connotation, and simply look at it in isolation.

We just inherently disagree. I feel that marrying someone and living according to the tenets of their religion (as I believe a marriage should) is a step beyond tolerance. I'm going to leave it at that b/c you and I are simply coming from two different points of view.

[Honeykiss1974]

Seriously, every person on earth is "intolerant" in terms of something (ex. no fat chicks/guys, must be 6'1' or taller, etc.) when it comes to a potential spouse.....I thought that was a given?

Maybe its just me but I'm getting the feeling that because this topic is concerning religion, then there is the need to denigrate those that have preferences under the guise of "looking at it in isolation".

If this thread was about any other trait or characteristics concerning a potential spouse, would we really even be sitting here having this discussion? I don't think so.

Again, I think Marie did pretty much summed up the ideas/reasoning for those of us that answered the question as well.

At least she did for me too.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
Maybe its just me but I'm getting the feeling that because this topic is concerning religion, then there is the need to denigrate those that have preferences under the guise of "looking at it in isolation".

Who is being "denigrated" in this thread?

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
Seriously, every person on earth is "intolerant" in terms of something (ex. no fat chicks/guys, must be 6'1' or taller, etc.) when it comes to a potential spouse.....I thought that was a given?

This is pretty close to my point - and it actually runs completely opposite to your point about 'denigrating' something in isolation.

[sugar and spice]

I think people are reading a little bit too much into this. I'm not saying that there's anything specifically wrong with only wanting to date someone of your own religion. (I think it's a little odd when you narrow it down to specific deominations and whatnot, but hey, there's nothing "wrong" about it.) I think I've even said, in this thread or another one, that it's not that I wouldn't date someone with opposite religious or political beliefs than I hold, but that religious and political beliefs often signal priorities and values that are important to a person, and it's difficult to sustain a relationship where your priorities or values or different. When it comes to relationships, people have varying degrees of "tolerance" (buzzword!) for views that conflict with their own, and especially if you're aiming for marriage or something similarly serious, it's good to minimize the amount of unresolvable conflicts.

That said, I do think that there are a lot of people who will only date someone of their religion (especially when you come down to things like only dating someone of your denomination), because they think that it will mean that the person will agree with them in all aspects of life (because our faiths are, theoretically, supposed to guide every aspect of our lives). What they don't acknowledge is that even within specific denominations, things can be interpreted quite differently. Or, being that people are imperfect and hypocritical, many of them know what they're doing is wrong but do it anyway. Hey, some of those Christian fundie boys are freaks in bed. Or so I hear.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
. Hey, some of those Christian fundie boys are freaks in bed. Or so I hear.

[Marie]

Originally posted by sugar and spice


That said, I do think that there are a lot of people who will only date someone of their religion (especially when you come down to things like only dating someone of your denomination), because they think that it will mean that the person will agree with them in all aspects of life (because our faiths are, theoretically, supposed to guide every aspect of our lives). What they don't acknowledge is that even within specific denominations, things can be interpreted quite differently. Or, being that people are imperfect and hypocritical, many of them know what they're doing is wrong but do it anyway. Hey, some of those Christian fundie boys are freaks in bed. Or so I hear.

Similar to my question to GP: Is this a conclusion that you've come to based upon experiences in your personal life, or is this based off of something that someone on here has stated?

I'm not asking you this to try to argue or challenge you. I genuinely want to understand your motivation. There seems to be some desire (in this thread) to do more than just state one's preference, but rather to 'prove' why someone else's preference is wrong or flawed.

At least for those who have posted here, I don't think that there is anyone who has stated that they believe that being of a common faith "means that the person will agree with them in all aspects of life ", nor do I think that there is anyone who will deny that "even within specific denominations, things can be interpreted quite differently. Or, being that people are imperfect and hypocritical, many of them know what they're doing is wrong but do it anyway". I think what is a more accurate analysis (based on what's been posted) is that some people feel that starting from a common religious base and then working through the other issues/problems from there is more ideal for them.

So is your analysis based upon what you have found to be true in your own life (amongst friends/family members), or is it just your assumption?

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by Marie
Similar to my question to GP: Is this a conclusion that you've come to based upon experiences in your personal life, or is this based off of something that someone on here has stated?

I'm not asking you this to try to argue or challenge you. I genuinely want to understand your motivation. There seems to be some desire (in this thread) to do more than just state one's preference, but rather to 'prove' why someone else's preference is wrong or flawed.

At least for those who have posted here, I don't think that there is anyone who has stated that they believe that being of a common faith "means that the person will agree with them in all aspects of life ", nor do I think that there is anyone who will deny that "even within specific denominations, things can be interpreted quite differently. Or, being that people are imperfect and hypocritical, many of them know what they're doing is wrong but do it anyway". I think what is a more accurate analysis (based on what's been posted) is that some people feel that starting from a common religious base and then working through the other issues/problems from there is more ideal for them.

So is your analysis based upon what you have found to be true in your own life (amongst friends/family members), or is it just your assumption?

You want to know if the assumption that some Christian fundamentalist boys are freaks in bed is based on personal experience or assumption? Heh . . .

No, in all seriousness, this is something that I've encountered in my personal life but also on this board as well. I don't understand your claim that I'm trying to prove that anything that doesn't echo my experience is "wrong." I flat-out said in my post that I don't think that it's wrong. If it's a personal preference that doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't involve me, I rarely make judgments on whether or not something's right/wrong. That doesn't mean I can't think it's WEIRD, though.

[Marie]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
You want to know if the assumption that some Christian fundamentalist boys are freaks in bed is based on personal experience or assumption? Heh . . .

No, in all seriousness, this is something that I've encountered in my personal life but also on this board as well. I don't understand your claim that I'm trying to prove that anything that doesn't echo my experience is "wrong." I flat-out said in my post that I don't think that it's wrong. If it's a personal preference that doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't involve me, I rarely make judgments on whether or not something's right/wrong. That doesn't mean I can't think it's WEIRD, though.

No, I wasn't saying that you were trying to prove that anyone else's preference was wrong. However, since that does seem to be what is motivating some others, then I genuinely wondered if you posted based off of what you had actually experienced, of if your post was in reference to something that was specifically said here.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Marie
There seems to be some desire (in this thread) to do more than just state one's preference, but rather to 'prove' why someone else's preference is wrong or flawed.

I think this aspect is being played up unnecessarily - I think everyone agrees that there's no 'wrong' involved here, since it's something that is completely up to personal choice, and probably doesn't carry 'value' (in the sense of right/wrong) in the sense some have applied it.

For me, I was simply pointing out that the act fits a very precise definition - but my overarching point was to end the value judgement of that definition, not to try to convince people they were 'wrong'.

Beside that, there is no reason to defend yourself here - everyone has given their reasoning, and they are free to follow that to their hearts' content . . . sometimes, this isn't the holy war we pretend it to be. Let's see the trees for the forest, instead of the other way around.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by honeychile
Back to tolerance: I've seen the phrases: "fundie", "nutbag", "fanatics", "bible thumpers", and probably more derogatory remarks about believing Christians in this thread, and this message board in general - yet there's only the one battle between two men which has abused any other religion. I don't see this as being the much vaunted "toleration" worshipped by so many.

Fine then I'll clarify my point about "fundies", "fanatics", "nutbag/job", and "bible-thumpers" - to me they are all the same thing, but the last being more faith specific... I only used the term "bible-thumper" because Christian fundamentalists are the standard fundamentalist you deal with here in North America - however I should also point out that they very few "Torah Thumpers" and "Koran Thumpers" almost as annoying.

Basically I'm interolerant (just for you KSig RC) of fundamentalists/fanatics of all flavours - be they Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Asstru, Wiccan, Christian, or heck even Atheist... I have no problem with those who are strong in their faith; just those whose faith is blind - or more to the point: those who feel that their particular brand of faith is the only right one - and all others are damned.

[Marie]

Originally posted by KSig RC
I think this aspect is being played up unnecessarily - I think everyone agrees that there's no 'wrong' involved here, since it's something that is completely up to personal choice, and probably doesn't carry 'value' (in the sense of right/wrong) in the sense some have applied it.

For me, I was simply pointing out that the act fits a very precise definition - but my overarching point was to end the value judgement of that definition, not to try to convince people they were 'wrong'.

Beside that, there is no reason to defend yourself here - everyone has given their reasoning, and they are free to follow that to their hearts' content . . . sometimes, this isn't the holy war we pretend it to be. Let's see the trees for the forest, instead of the other way around.

I wasn't referring to you :-)

[MTSUGURL]

Umm, I'm not, as you put it, one of THOSE people. Your posts have been very accusatory, and that's not something I'm used to seeing in your posts. I've apologized if I've said something to offend you, and I hope that you will accept that.

This is the only thing I'm going to say about tolerance - I want to be more than tolerant of the person I date or marry. I want to be THRILLED with what we have in common, as well as how we compliment each other with our difference.

One of my closest friends for 6 years was raised Baptist, then becamse Charismatic, and is now agnostic. Her son, however, was christened in a Catholic church and I am his godmother. I more than have tolerance for this family - I love them to distraction. However, we do not agree where religion is concerned.

I don't assume that if I marry a man that is my faith and denomination that we will agree in every aspect of life. But it does mean that we agree in the aspect that I consider most important.

[ZTAngel]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Dude, you just called Born-Again Christians "completed Jews" . . . just wanted to bring that back for you, because it's ridiculous

But her friend said it, not her. It's ok to write offensive things on GC as long as you claim someone else said it.

Sorry if I sound like a beeyotch but I've seen it so many times on GC where someone will write something offensive followed by "but my friend said it".

The whole Jews for Jesus thing really hits home for the real Jews. They are not Jews and the real Jews don't want to be associated with them in any way. They are Christians. Perpetuating the idea that they're completed Jews is insulting.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by MTSUGURL
Umm, I'm not, as you put it, one of THOSE people. Your posts have been very accusatory, and that's not something I'm used to seeing in your posts. I've apologized if I've said something to offend you, and I hope that you will accept that.

This is the only thing I'm going to say about tolerance - I want to be more than tolerant of the person I date or marry. I want to be THRILLED with what we have in common, as well as how we compliment each other with our difference.

One of my closest friends for 6 years was raised Baptist, then becamse Charismatic, and is now agnostic. Her son, however, was christened in a Catholic church and I am his godmother. I more than have tolerance for this family - I love them to distraction. However, we do not agree where religion is concerned.

I don't assume that if I marry a man that is my faith and denomination that we will agree in every aspect of life. But it does mean that we agree in the aspect that I consider most important.

I'm not trying to attack you specifically, or anyone else in this thread. If you really feel it is that important that your future spouse be your particular flavor of Christianity, then fine, do that. I'm not planning on marrying any of the posters in this thread so it doesn't affect me.

My problem is with all y'all who are saying that people can't lead Christian lives if a married couple doesn't worship God in the exact same way. I think it is entirely possible for people to follow God's instructions for a relationship while worshipping in two variant forms. I've seen it done, a lot. You're saying you don't think I can do what I want to do with my life. I don't think that's true.

And as an added thought - I think those of you who are calling Jews for Jesus "completed Jews" would not be so happy if I called you an "incomplete Catholic." I'm assuming you're all Protestants, because I don't think the Catholic Church has much to do with converting Jews.