OK. I’ll can only respond to the points a little at a time. I work. I have kids. I have a life. Anyhoo…"have at" what I put up so far.

Now I see why some Christians accuse Evangelicals or Open Theists of moral relativism. Some will look at this as a “lowering of the bar” especially with regard to question number #5. It’s a way of “dealing with the problem.“ But it’s a good thing to think outside of the box sometimes. Just as an aside, while some of your arguments (and questions) pertain specifically to heterosexuals, some do apply to the question of homosexuality of which you want to leave out. So I wonder how some of the implications of what you apply in heterosexual situations would play out in homosexual situations.

On a personal note, this is definitely food for thought with regard to my own situation and I think to yours as well, eh Meph (at least in the past little while)?

I like the practical ending there Meph Man. As a matter of fact if some were to do what you say in taking practical steps in considering this level of a relationship, they may find out (even after years of being with each other prior to the formal ceremony) that they should-just-not-be and consider ending the relationship.  Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen talks about this.

I like the basis for what you say here. Trinity. As a matter of fact, you may want to say something about what guys like Hauerwas and Lee refer to as “broader social contexts.” In other words, the relationality of the marriage should be understood against not only the relationality of the Trinity but an understanding of “church” should figure into the equation. The ideal that you ask for there CANNOT be done on it’s own, but needs the backing of the church. So I think you are really skimpy in that area. This may have A LOT to say in terms of your, “well, let's stick this out and make the best of it" ideas. In other words, the “sticking it out” doesn’t have to work out simply because of the “gravity of the CONTRACT” (“contract” as it is understood today is totally foreign to the biblical text, though much of North American contractual law is based on the idea of convenant). Think of an “ugly duckling” type story. Or a Shrek type story. We live to see the other grow in freedom to become a beautiful swan or prince or princess. This is not contract. THIS IS relationality. You “stick with it” for THAT purpose. Now, another thing, this is not meant to say that one’s spouse should have the freedom to “grow” by ending the relationship for another. We need to be careful here. For the Christian, it will mean “growth to become more like Christ.” In some situations that will entail ending the marriage. Becoming. Eschatology. Love it.

“The kind of character necessary to sustain the family Christians care about involves more substantive convictions than the family itself can provide. Put simply, if we have not first learned what it means to be faithful to self and other in the church, then we have precious little chance of learning it through marriage and family. Marriage and family may help to reinforce or even awaken us to, what we have learned in church; but it cannot be the source of fidelity necessary for either marriage or family."--Stanley Hauerwas

I don’t know if I would say that God is IN the relationship as much as I would say that the relationship REFLECTS the sociality of God and therefore the ideal. You could, of course, have non-Christians who attempt to love (and do love) in this way but God isn’t in the relationship at all can’t you?

Later gator,