Make a Donation

Lots of time and effort goes into creating and maintaining this site. If we've helped you, consider making a donation.  

Current Poll

I'm thinking that the new pope should be...
 

Support Us!

Buy theophiles merchandise from our store!

Thank you all for your input
Journal
Written by giziti   
Thursday, 28 May 2009 10:56

Thank you all for indulging my curiosity in my previous poll. As I mentioned, it was purely for curiosity rather than advice, since I had already formed my opinions and then cast the die, as it were, based on those opinions. I am now prepared to disappear back into the mists of time, unless I come up with some survey questions about marriage where I want to disagree with everything everybody says.

Of course, maybe this is all a big mistake. I'm a Kubuntu man, she's an Ubuntu girl.

Anyway: I discussed my particular views in the comment section. To reiterate slightly, I believe there are four stages you have to consciously navigate through:

1. Figuring out whether it's worthwhile to get to know each other better in order to discern whether or not you would be a good match for marriage.

2. Getting to know each other better in order to discern whether or not you would be a good match for marriage.

3. Deciding to get married and then preparing for marriage.

4. Marriage.

The point is that suitability for marriage is at the forefront of it all. Additionally, one should keep in mind that the level of intimacy must not exceed the commitment. One is not married until one is married. A man should not declare his love for a woman until he is willing to propose marriage (and does propose marriage). Etc etc. So it seems odd to me that it could take much longer than a year to get to stage 3 if one is intentionally discerning whether to marry somebody, especially as one is undoubtedly going to end up entangled emotionally in a way that is inadvisable and improper for the level of commitment implied by the lack of expressed intention to plight one's troth in that time frame. Yes, that includes declarations of love by a man not immediately followed by proposals.

Well, that's my opinion of the matter. You can take it or leave it. Both are probably dangerous in their own way, but if you at least consider what I have said, well, doesn't it look a little bit more sane than what the world is telling you? The problem with dating somebody for an extended period of time before engagement and marriage is that, well, what ARE you for that long time, and what are you when it breaks off? If you know it won't break off, then why are you not yet committed? If you think it may and are working on figuring out whether you should be married, how long will it take to figure out whether you are willing to commit or not? What are you doing with all this time, young man?

But, what do I know? I'm just a young fool with strong opinions. I got engaged in about 2 months and I suppose I'll be married within about 7 of starting to date this girl. One more instance of my life conforming to my opinions - funny how that works. I don't think that particular time scale can be readily transferred to others, but I really do think marriage within a year is quite feasible for many and engagement within a year should be the rule for most. The caveat is that if you don't think your life situation permits you to do this, you should either not date or reassess your life situation.

Good grief, I think I'm beginning to sound like somebody from Focus on the Family. But, for once, they have some decent ideas. That's something you would never think to hear from me, eh?

Comments
Search
grizzly   |2009-05-28 12:02:09
Since you've officially declared your engagement, let me wish you congratulations.

Let us know when you get married. (Then we can start asking you when to expect little gizitis running/crawling around.)
emperorbma   |2009-05-28 12:11:43
I second those congratulations...
SteveGus   |2009-05-28 12:45:48
Indeed! Congratulations on your engagement!
giziti   |2009-05-28 13:25:11
Okay, I'm sure I'll have some time after I get married and before the first child to write another journal. I'd make a controversial post about contraception, I suppose, but I did that at the last site.
CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-28 15:01:32
You'd better have at least 9 months (give or take a couple weeks) between getting married and the first child; that should be long enough. ;-)

I forget what your controversial post about contraception was on the last site, so I'd appreciate hearing it again.
holmegm   |2009-05-28 13:55:20
Congratulations!
bigbenaugust   |2009-05-28 15:28:04
Quote:
Of course, maybe this is all a big mistake. I'm a Kubuntu man, she's an Ubuntu girl.


Even after KDE4? Wow. Maybe you could agree on XFCE or LXDE or something.
CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-28 17:10:18
Was that supposed to mean that KDE 4 should have convinced her to go KDE or that it should have convinced giziti to go GNOME? 'Cause I think I could see it going either way.
grizzly   |2009-05-28 18:31:25
Well, at least they're both Linux. (No offense to OS X users out there.)
emperorbma   |2009-05-28 20:07:31
Well, GTK+ and QT are also portable so they *theoretically* could also be on BSD and MacOSX.
grizzly   |2009-05-28 21:19:42
I think {K}Ubuntu run the Linux kernel.
emperorbma   |2009-05-28 22:59:31
Naturally, I was following in the vein of WM systems though...
CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-29 12:55:13
Yeah, but I was just talking about KDE and GNOME in general.
bigbenaugust   |2009-06-02 13:49:31
KDE4 should have convinced him to chuck KDE. For goodness sakes, a dashboard?
CoffeeZombie   |2009-06-02 14:11:29
I dunno...I mean, I kinda like KDE 4...it's just not ready for regular use yet, and it's a tragedy the Kubuntu guys thought it would be a good idea to make it the only KDE option in the latest releases.
bigbenaugust   |2009-06-02 18:12:22
I really REALLY liked KDE 3.5. KDE4 is what drove me back to old-school window managers.
giziti  - re:   |2009-05-28 17:19:02
CoffeeZombie wrote:
I forget what your controversial post about contraception was on the last site, so I'd appreciate hearing it again.

I basically just asked, "So, what's the deal with Protestant unconditional acceptance of contraception? Ever question that?"
CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-29 13:00:43
Oh...that doesn't seem to controversial to me...
emperorbma   |2009-05-29 13:48:31
It tends to be controversial among many non-Protestants, though.
CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-29 14:13:42
I would think it would be more controversial among Protestants. Why would non-Protestants really care that much about how Protestants use contraception?

BTW, I'm not Protestant.
giziti  - re:   |2009-05-28 17:27:14
bigbenaugust wrote:
Even after KDE4? Wow. Maybe you could agree on XFCE or LXDE or something.
Don't let's get into this. Just... don't. I'm still a little bitter. Great. And now I have to compose myself in the next half hour before we meet at the museum. I mean, you know, we're remarkably in tune on religious issues, but sometimes, well, religious issues...
grizzly  - re: re:   |2009-05-28 18:35:13
giziti wrote:
I mean, you know, we're remarkably in tune on religious issues, but sometimes, well, religious issues...


So, umm,

have you talked to her about, umm,

you know,

um,

{whispering} vi versus emacs?

;-)
CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-29 12:59:41
Also, Kirk or Picard. Before that, though, Star Wars vs Star Trek. And if Star Trek, what is her opinion on Eps 1-3?

Seriously, though, what is the big deal between KDE and GNOME? I mean, I know there was a big deal when Qt wasn't fully open-source (or, at least, not as open source as the GNU fanatics would like), but IIRC Qt is fully open source now.

I used to prefer GNOME because I had more freedom to choose my own window manager, etc. (it was right there in the settings). Then they took that away. I got pissed and went to KDE instead.

Oh, but that does bring up another contentious, yet important, issue: what are her views on the GPL?
emperorbma   |2009-05-29 13:47:04
Quote:
Seriously, though, what is the big deal between KDE and GNOME? I mean, I know there was a big deal when Qt wasn't fully open-source (or, at least, not as open source as the GNU fanatics would like), but IIRC Qt is fully open source now.


From my observations of this, it amounts to three things: Look and feel (i.e. style), personal preference and brand loyalty. These are collectively and colloquially known among /. geeks as "religion."

P.S. Although GNOME is C and has that as its positive, its negatives are that it hides stuff from users and I, personally, find some of its UI design behaviors to be suboptimal. (e.g. the dang desktop icons don't line up properly!!!) Hence, I tend to use KDE although if KDE4 doesn't shape up to what KDE3 was able to do, I may be forced to experiment some more. Somehow, with this new version, I can't maximize that dang Desktop folder component to fill the root window like the icons did by default in KDE3... [Yeah, I'm finicky... bite me :P ]
CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-29 13:41:42
ah...I guess I just don't get that part.

Then again, I don't understand how anyone but contortionists could prefer emacs, so...
grizzly   |2009-05-29 16:08:00
can't stand gnome myself, and since slackware doesn't offer it anymore, it doesn't waste space on my hard drive (or install cd). it was dropped from slackware because it kept breaking other packages by replacing core modules with broken gnome-specific ones (among other reasons). as for kde, i'm still using kde3, since kde4 still isn't ready for prime time. it was a big mistake for ubuntu to include it.
CoffeeZombie  - re:   |2009-05-29 16:16:14
grizzly wrote:
as for kde, i'm still using kde3, since kde4 still isn't ready for prime time. it was a big mistake for ubuntu to include it.
It's not just that it's included, that wouldn't be an issue for me (I'd run both), but that, at least in Kubuntu, it's the only option. WTF were they smoking?

Then again, speaking of KDE issues, I quit using Amarok a while back. I couldn't find a way to play CDs in Amarok 2, and from all I can tell, the devs basically decided they weren't going to bother including it. *facepalm*
grizzly   |2009-05-29 16:22:34
So, have you found a decent media player/manager that also plays CDs?
CoffeeZombie   |2009-05-29 16:41:26
Not yet...I've currently settled on Songbird, as it seems like a decent audio player and they don't have CD support *yet* (as opposed to, "We never planned on adding it).

I believe the old Amarok had CD support; maybe I'm just forgetting.
emperorbma   |2009-05-29 20:02:29
Supposedly Amarok is going to be readding those disappeared features soon.
CoffeeZombie  - re:   |2009-06-02 14:25:44
emperorbma wrote:
Although GNOME is C and has that as its positive, its negatives are that it hides stuff from users and I, personally, find some of its UI design behaviors to be suboptimal. (e.g. the dang desktop icons don't line up properly!!!)
I think that's what ticked me off about GNOME a few years back. When I first started using Linux, I loved how customizable it was. For example, I had this as my desktop in GNOME.

Then they started changing things, and took away all the choices.
CoffeeZombie  - re:   |2009-05-29 13:00:14
CoffeeZombie wrote:
Also, Kirk or Picard. Before that, though, Star Wars vs Star Trek. And if Star Trek, what is her opinion on Eps 1-3?

That should be, if Star *Wars*, what is her opinion on Eps 1-3...
Entity   |2009-05-29 13:49:28
That makes more sense. I thought you might be referencing whether she considered "The Cage", "The Man Trap", or "Where No Man Has Gone Before" as the first episode of ST:TOS.
bigbenaugust  - re: re:   |2009-06-02 13:52:06
giziti wrote:
Don't let's get into this. Just... don't. I'm still a little bitter. Great. And now I have to compose myself in the next half hour before we meet at the museum. I mean, you know, we're remarkably in tune on religious issues, but sometimes, well, religious issues...


But this is a site about religion, right? We should get into this!

(I use Openbox, or sometimes icewm.)
grizzly  - re: re: re:   |2009-06-02 16:03:01
bigbenaugust wrote:
But this is a site about religion, right? We should get into this!


This site is Theophiles, not GUIphiles. ;-)
Entity   |2009-06-02 16:15:23
So only discussion of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Linus Torvalds is allowed?
grizzly   |2009-06-02 16:35:56
Nope, those are only gurus. One in marketing, one in product design, and one in programming.
grizzly   |2009-06-02 16:37:27
Alternatively, we could talk about Jobs and Torvalds, but not Gates. This isn't diablophiles, after all. ;-O
WebbedFeetOfClay  - wait,   |2009-06-02 17:13:07
so this is an appropriate place to talk about my love for all things Malcolm-Jamal Warner?
grizzly   |2009-06-02 17:34:18
*headdesk*
bigbenaugust   |2009-06-02 18:13:49
That domain doesn't seem to be taken... hmmm...
SasyMomaCat  - Many Congratulations!   |2009-05-28 17:47:46
I wish you all the best and may God's blessings be abundant in your union!

H&P,
smc
patronpeter  - yeay!   |2009-05-29 08:53:25
congrats on your engagement!
Jim   |2009-05-29 09:58:27
Congratulations.
giziti  - re:   |2009-05-29 15:19:12
CoffeeZombie wrote:
Oh...that doesn't seem to controversial to me...
Well, you know how I ask questions...
giziti  - re:   |2009-05-29 15:21:18
CoffeeZombie wrote:
ah...I guess I just don't get that part.

Then again, I don't understand how anyone but contortionists could prefer emacs, so...
Okay, sweet, that just put an end to my caring about our disagreement on that one. You'd better be right, though.
CoffeeZombie  - re: re:   |2009-05-29 16:12:57
giziti wrote:
[quote=CoffeeZombie]ah...I guess I just don't get that part.

Then again, I don't understand how anyone but contortionists could prefer emacs, so...
Okay, sweet, that just put an end to my caring about our disagreement on that one. You'd better be right, though.[/quote]

I'm not making any promises. This is pure speculation, based on having actually tried to use emacs before.
laika   |2009-05-29 20:30:26
congratulations, giziti and soon-to-be Lady G!

obviously, my 20+ years dating period isn't for everyone, so i can only wish youz two all the blessedest as you rush headlong into marriage :-)

and yes, KDE, if you have the resources, though it's good to look in on the growth of Xfce from time to time. and there's always JWM if you need something really light.
metallurge  - Congratulations!   |2009-06-01 13:24:28
Just one question, my friend...

Is she makin' ya shave the beard?
Only registered users can write comments!

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Last Updated on Thursday, 28 May 2009 10:59
 

Our valuable member giziti has been with us since Monday, 07 April 2008.

Show Other Articles


Statistics

Members : 38618
Content : 1256
Content View Hits : 5903073

Who's Online

We have 106 guests and 22 members online
  • emperorbma
  • qxpvakrm
  • Wapkanguaph
  • Chrisdc
  • Ankvkxrv
  • hnshan23
  • GAmGremietemY
  • eahychetiann
  • Christina
  • mypeLemia
  • Jelinevlx
  • pgmrhzj
  • Christian
  • zjyxqusjhs
  • Christine
  • carpinteyrogzx
  • ztjszsms