Login/Sign Up




Are wedding rings necessary to show love between two married people?
Society

frankiej4189
Dec 12, 2008
12 votes
11 debaters
4
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

4
Yes


frankiej4189
Dec 12, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: justwindowin Show

Completely off topic, but dude your avatar is great!

This site needs more bright green ; )

But seriously folks, what's the deal with wedding rings? They don't wed people and they don't ring!

But seriously seriously folks, why do people need an expensive blood diamond around their finger (women) or a pointless gold circle (men) to show their love? It's not like married people without those rings love eachother any less.

 
littleminx
Dec 12, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Oh boy....this is a hard one to debate. Here is how I look at it, Is is necessary...NO! Is it important... YES!!!

Its traditional, the way you give roses and chocolates (or whatever) for your woman on valentines day....It is not necessary at all, but it is a symbolic gesture. Your man doesn't go around buying all the ladies flowers all the time....so its special when its for you. Thats how I see it...

Now, back to the ring. It doesn't have to be a big diamond ring...and it doesn't have to be expensive - even a small band will do. To me, personally, its a symbolic gesture. All I know is that when and if I get married I want a ring...any ring for that matter, as long as it comes form my guy. :-)

 
thales
Dec 14, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Of course not. But if my husband ever took his off, there would be a conversation.

 
vancam
Dec 12, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: justwindowin Show

However, they serve as a reasonably effective method of showing OTHER people that they are married and (hopefully) love one another.

 
ranger65
Dec 13, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
As a minister I am not going to spend the next hour telling you the true symbolic meaning of the rings and what they symolize as far as eternal love or how a ring on your left hand means you are in servitude to another....why would we want to know anything about love in relationship to marriage?
YES. yes you do have to have and wear a ring. First of all for the woman it tells the world that she is not an adulteress or a fornicator when seen in public with the husband or children. For the man it is suppose to be a weapon against temptation by warding off any suiters for the man and woman. Oh boy.

 
ranger65
Dec 16, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

No your way is about a no commitment load of horse dung and any woman willing to tolerate it is probably cheating on you.

 
ranger65
Dec 16, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: littleminx Show

Hasn't changed much. The first thing a smart man would do is get his wife as far away from his mother-in-law as quick as possible in the dark, when she is asleep and roll the car down the driveway so as not to wake the battle ax up and disappear
into the night and keep driving and driving and driving.....oh sorry I was having a flash back.

 
ranger65
Dec 20, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: littleminx Show

You are baiting me into an argument.....hmmmmm....what is your motive you little minx...........I stand beside my assertion that a man out and about town or out of town with his ring of is looking for some "minx?" LOL

 
notjesus
Aug 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The exchanging of rings is a highly valued tradition. Each ring is suppose to be a symbol of love for the other. How can you argue against that point? Granted the ring does not have to be a 5 thousand dollar ring, but a simple, personal and inexpensive ring.

A wedding ring shows that you can put your own life and money on hold to give that money and time to another. It symbolizes your true devotion to the person you give it to. If you give someone a ring, then damn well be prepared to live up to your promise.

If you do not believe in the wedding ring tradition.....
Then don't do it. But do not mock what you personally do not understand. It is a symbol of love.



 
wanttogetout
Aug 10, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
its use is to show you are married so you dnt cheat like arabs cover there wives faces

 
+ Add Argument

8
No


spellenstein
Dec 12, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Love is not materialism. Materialism is not love.

Two in love would not require a ring, if they were really in love, because a ring does not represent love. It is materialism.

 
jonjax71
Dec 13, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ranger65 Show

You have a very myopic and antiquated view of marriage, niether one is in servitude to the other, it is a partnership, an equal partnership, one nurturing the other

Your mandatory statement about you HAVE to wear a ring is B S. The origins of wearing a ring on the "ring finger", next to the pinkie stems from the ancient Greeks who thought that the vein in that finger was directly connected to the heart, a supposition that modern anatomy proved false. The engagement ring is supposed to be worn on the outside to protect the wedding band and for that to be closer to the heart, yet many ladies wear it reversed which traditionally is a symbol of a widowed or divorced woman. But it is all symbolic and a wedding ring doesn't mean a thing, but I understand your sentiments because since you are a minister you are in the symbols business.

Read my post about NOT wearing a ring and you'll learn it is all about the heart, mind, soul and the commitment one makes without any symbols.

 
littleminx
Dec 15, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ranger65 Show

Im not going to argue religion here but the true origins of the ring have nothing to do with love...Its actually quite opposite. If you look up the History on marrige, look into rings....

- It was a symbol of ownership, usually when a man stole a woman away from her family!!!




 
littleminx
Dec 19, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ranger65 Show

....mm, the men "stole", kidnapped the women and married them - putting a ring on their finger to show ownership and that they were now taken, then they would go to a far away place - known as honeymoon today - it was a cooling-off-period for the family and there he would consummate the marriage - sometimes having the carry the bride over the threshold to get her in the room - .....to make sure that all went according to plan, the groom would have a "best man" to be on a look out in case the family came to intervene..........YES, so much like our times today! I guess nothing much has changed!!!!

As chance has it, the oldest recorded exchange of wedding rings comes from ancient Egypt - 4800 years ago. The ring was linked with the supernatural, a never-ending band linked with eternal love.

Later on, for the Romans, the ring's acceptance by a young lady was a binding, "legal" agreement and the girl was no longer FREE - according to their LAWS. They were regraded as property and the men did not wear rings. Today we accept the ring as part of a religious ceremony when we marry in church.....SO, times have changed.

Wedding traditions date back as far as the Romans in 400 B.C. and they have a very different meaning today...but are still carried out - just with a different meaning!!!

http://www.hudsonvalleyweddings.com/guide/customs.htm

http://www.atlantisring.com/History_of_Wedding_Rings.htm


 
littleminx
Dec 19, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ranger65 Show

"Probably" is rather a strong word to apply. Basing your opinion on personal events or occurrences in "your" life is fine but keep in mind that everyone is different and not everyone thinks like you...

To make such a sweeping assumption, you are implying that if a woman or a man is not wearing his/her ring they are "probably" a cheater...that my friend is a load of horse dung........because you are generalizing.

 
justwindowin
Dec 12, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Love is not represented by rings, its just a long tradition that merely shows someone your married wihtout actually telling them.

 
justmacen
Dec 12, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
A ring is just a symbol of love, you can love someone without a ring to show it. Actions tend to speak louder than words though. Making the conscience decision to buy something and work hard for the money shows dedication. It is the right thing to do if you love someone to buy them a ring. However just because someone can't afford a ring doesn't mean that you don't love the other person.

 
jonjax71
Dec 12, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
As a person who has been happily and enthusiastically maried for over 30 years, I can tell you a ring is just as previously stated, a symbol-it doesn't mean a thing, it is the heart, mind and soul that counts. I have never worn a wedding band, or any other ring or jewelry. I don't buy gold, diamonds or other jewlery because I know the story behind them, decades before the recent light shedding on "blood diamonds". So for political reasons I never have purchased "traditional" jewelry. My wife wear a custom made gold wedding band made by a friend of ours from Northern California who made it from gold nuggets he fished out of the Russian River near where the Calif Gold Rush started in the 1800s, She wears it because she wants to not because I ask her to, it's a unique looking braided ring with greenish and pinkish gold interwoven as our goldsmith friend used copper and zinc to give it is color when alloying it. When I proposed to my wife I slipped on a sterling silver turquoise solitaire ring made by the same jeweler, she has since retired it as silver is soft and turquoise is a fragile stone and she wants to preserve it

I know of ladies who are single yet wear a wedding ring to ward off being hit on, I know of fellows who are not married yet wear a band because some ladies like to mess with married men, so I repeat a ring don't mean kaka

I have been in bars over the decades as I used to have to travel across the country for business reasons and on ocassion I would be approached by a female and I would tell them I was happily married, when asked why I don't wear a ring I would respond, I gave my heart to my wife, not the finger.



 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

society Abortion alcohol america Animal animals army art ban BBC black Britain British Capitalism child children Chinese Communism control convinceme council Court crime criminal culture death death penalty Debate Democracy drugs Economy education England english equality ethics EU evil food Frankie Freedom Gay girls good Government Great Britain health House of Lords human illegal Internet Islam Judge Justice language Law lawyer Legal lesbian Liberty life love marijuana marriage men money morals murder music Muslim Obama opinion parenting parents peace people police politics poor Porn pregnancy prison privacy punishment race racism religion Responsibility Rich Rights School science sex slavery smoking social society Students suicide technology terrorism the UK UN United Kingdom united states USA VanCam Video Games violence war weed white women world