Is a loveless marriage really a marriage?

Monna · Nov 16, 2018

Dave-W said:
But you admit that if you make vows, she is a wife. Therefore a marriage has taken place.

I understand that some denominations do not give full recognition to a "legal" marriage that is not consummated physically, hence the process of annullment. But I could be wrong.

And that is why on the converse some would say that sexual intimacy with, say a prostitute, is equivalent to marriage, that is, two have become one flesh, without the marriage licence.

Dave-W · Nov 16, 2018

Monna said:
And that is why on the converse some would say that sexual intimacy with, say a prostitute, is equivalent to marriage, that is, two have become one flesh, without the marriage licence.

And the guy has to get in line behind a hundred other men before him.
That is no marriage.

Sabertooth · Nov 16, 2018

Dave-W said:
And the guy has to get in line behind a hundred other men before him.
That is no marriage.

From the "one flesh = marriage" perspective, that lack of exclusivity would be what makes it sin, particularly "You shall not commit adultery."

It claims that consensual consummation* IS the initiation of a vow.

*For those who would try to apply this to non-Edenic sex, consummation can only occur in the Edenic variety.

Dave-W · Nov 16, 2018

Sabertooth said:
From the "one flesh = marriage" perspective,

Except that is NOT the biblical perspective.

RDKirk · Nov 16, 2018

Monna said:
You are speaking of States in the USA.

Yeah, I actually said that.

But you picque my curiosity, RDK ... can you give me a reference substantiating your claim that "any religion has a constitutional right" to perform marriages, please.

That would be the First Amendment to the Constitution. Effectively, the government cannot define what specifically constitutes a "religion," nor would it win a court battle if it tried to identify a marriage that would have been perfectly legal if performed by a cleric of one religion as illegal when performed by a cleric of a different religion. In fact, that case wouldn't even get through the courtroom door--a judge would throw an injunction against that from his bedroom.

Sabertooth · Nov 16, 2018

Dave-W said:
Except that is NOT the biblical perspective.

Looking again at Genesis 24:67 (using your perspective),

"And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah [to be one flesh], and she [later] became his wife [via ceremony];..."

Dave-W · Nov 16, 2018

Sabertooth said:
Looking again at Genesis 24:67 (using your perspective),

And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah [to be one flesh], and she [later] became his wife [via ceremony];..."

Be careful parsing ancient Hebrew texts using modern English principles.
Your additions do not work in the Hebrew.

Sabertooth · Nov 16, 2018

That is, unless when he "brought her into his mother Sarah's tent," he did not consummate with her then and there...

Then it could be parsed as,

"And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent [showed her to her accommodations], and
took Rebekah [to the altar?], and
she became his wife;..." [through a conventional wedding ceremony]

NBB · Nov 16, 2018

Monna said:
what about hugging, holding hands or French kissing?

I don't know!, is a full marriage like that?, with vows and hugs?
Do you commit adultery if you do it with another but never did it with your wife? it seems 'half an adultery'.

Sabertooth · Nov 16, 2018

NBB said:
it seems 'half an adultery'.

Do people ever really stop there...!? That isn't even considering the "Lust in your heart" angle [Matthew 5:28].

Verv · Nov 17, 2018

Dave-W said:
2 points:

"Sex is not love"
And yet there are 2 words in the bible (Hebrew dod and Greek eros) that are translated "love" that have sex as a main component.

"in Heaven there will be none !"
I realize this is a popular idea, but is entirely unfounded in scripture.

What is interesting to note about this is that native Greek speakers, like St. Porphyrios, a 20th century Greek Orthodox monk, actually refer to 'divine love' as divine eros, the word that connects to erotic in English and has a sexual component.

Yet, obviously, there is absolutely nothing about his use of the word that involves an erotic component.

The notion that there will be no sex in heaven is founded on this teaching found in 1 Corinthians 7:

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

6But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

Thus, when we enter the Kingdom of God, it is believed that it will not be a place for sex, but that our condition will be fundamentally different because that is the most preferable way.

Do you see my point?

Dave-W · Nov 17, 2018

Verv said:
What is interesting to note about this is that native Greek speakers, like St. Porphyrios, a 20th century Greek Orthodox monk, actually refer to 'divine love' as divine eros, the word that connects to erotic in English and has a sexual component.

Yet, obviously, there is absolutely nothing about his use of the word that involves an erotic component.

The notion that there will be no sex in heaven is founded on this teaching found in 1 Corinthians 7:

Thus, when we enter the Kingdom of God, it is believed that it will not be a place for sex, but that our condition will be fundamentally different because that is the most preferable way.

Do you see my point?

No. That is a matter of your interpretation.

Verv · Nov 17, 2018

So Dave, would you say that St. Porphyrios was talking about "eros" and "divine eros" in a way that was sexual?

That idea is not defensible, IMO, and St. Porphyrios was a native speaker of Greek. Indeed, I think it may have been the only language that he knew as he was from a rural, poor background and I had never heard of him even leaving Greece.

Yet, his translators rendered divine love as 'divine eros,' and it was often untranslated. This implies hat 'eros' can be used in a way that has zero to do with the sexual.

What is your explanation?

Paidiske · Nov 18, 2018

RDKirk said:
That would be the First Amendment to the Constitution. Effectively, the government cannot define what specifically constitutes a "religion," nor would it win a court battle if it tried to identify a marriage that would have been perfectly legal if performed by a cleric of one religion as illegal when performed by a cleric of a different religion. In fact, that case wouldn't even get through the courtroom door--a judge would throw an injunction against that from his bedroom.

This puzzles me. If the government can't define what is and isn't a religion, how does it define when laws to do with religious freedom do and don't apply to particular groups of people?

In Australia, where clergy also perform marriages, there is a system for religions to register so that their clergy can be legally recognised. It doesn't just happen by default. I'm amazed that in America it apparently does... how does that even work? Who oversees that process and ensures that those clergy are (for example) only conducting legal marriages?

As for eros - I understand it to involve a nuance of desire, and we can certainly talk about divine desire, can we not?

SkyWriting · Nov 18, 2018

ColoRaydo said:
EDIT: ** My goodness, people! Read the post before answering!**

There have been a few threads regarding marriage and divorce recently that really got me worked up with the theme of “one and done or you’re going to hell.”

So this got me thinking about a few married couples in loveless/sexless marriages that I know. The older you get, you may know some also.

Two couples that I know sleep in separate bedrooms and take separate vacations. They are nothing but roommates with kids. Another couple has been separated for about 5 years but won’t divorce because “it’s a sin”.

At what point do you believe that a marriage, while still legally valid, is no longer meeting Gods idea of marriage?

I believe that staying in an emotionally or physically abusive marriage or in one devoid of love and respect solely because “God hates divorce” is pure legalism. I think that God hates divorce because of what it does to his people. Aren’t loveless marriages contrary to his desire as well?

**I am not including anyone in a marriage that is physically or psychologically unable to have sex, only those who choose not to be intimate.

You can always change your emotions. You can't change a promise.

RDKirk · Nov 18, 2018

Paidiske said:
This puzzles me. If the government can't define what is and isn't a religion, how does it define when laws to do with religious freedom do and don't apply to particular groups of people?

Notice that I referred to the court system.

What will happen is that at some point in time, any particular issue of religious freedom goes to court and is dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

The law, btw, does not define what a "news organization" is with regard to "freedom of the press" either.

In Australia, where clergy also perform marriages, there is a system for religions to register so that their clergy can be legally recognised. It doesn't just happen by default. I'm amazed that in America it apparently does... how does that even work? Who oversees that process and ensures that those clergy are (for example) only conducting legal marriages?

Persons intending to marry must first get a license from the state. The state determines whether they are permitted to marry and issues a license.

There is a section on the license where an officiant verifies that the marriage ceremony did, indeed, take place, and there are places for witnesses to the ceremony to sign as well.

The state doesn't usually follow up on the bona fides of the officiant who signed the certificate. If the state has already "signed off" on the substantive legality of the marriage, the ceremonial officiant isn't really significant.

Paidiske · Nov 18, 2018

RDKirk said:
What will happen is that at some point in time, any particular issue of religious freedom goes to court and is dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

That sounds rather messy and inefficient. Also would leave a lot of people uncertain of their standing. I wouldn't like that at all.

RDKirk said:
Persons intending to marry must first get a license from the state. The state determines whether they are permitted to marry and issues a license.

There is a section on the license where an officiant verifies that the marriage ceremony did, indeed, take place, and there are places for witnesses to the ceremony to sign as well.

The state doesn't usually follow up on the bona fides of the officiant who signed the certificate. If the state has already "signed off" on the substantive legality of the marriage, the ceremonial officiant isn't really significant.

Ah, that makes sense. Here, if clergy solemnise a marriage we do all the legal paperwork.

Reborn1977 · Nov 19, 2018

Thank you...it takes God's blessings to keep going during the lean aka difficult years...but love wins when we choose to let it win.

Reborn1977 · Nov 19, 2018

Thank you...it takes God's blessings to keep going during the lean aka difficult years...but love wins when we choose to let it win.

Reborn1977 · Nov 19, 2018

I keep trying to quote Blade and it is not working.
The last two posts were meant to address his post to me.

Is a loveless marriage really a marriage?

Well-Known Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!

Well-Known Member

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!

Senior Veteran

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Senior Veteran

Clara bonam audax

The Librarian

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Clara bonam audax

Devoted to Jesus - Less of me MORE of HIM

Devoted to Jesus - Less of me MORE of HIM

Devoted to Jesus - Less of me MORE of HIM

Similar threads