Marriage

[SnowBear]

It doesn't matter where someone is....we are called to follow the laws of the land we're in. So if the laws of the land state that to be married we need to go througha ceremony and sign some papers in front of witnesses then that is what we must do.

I was referring to the artificial restriction you placed on your definition of marriage limiting who can and who cannot be legally married.



We are also called upon to oppose discrimination in the law.


By the way. I did exactly that when I married, however because of the restrictions of the law we cannot file said papers making our marriage legal.

 

[seebs]

It doesn't matter where someone is....we are called to follow the laws of the land we're in. So if the laws of the land state that to be married we need to go througha ceremony and sign some papers in front of witnesses then that is what we must do.

What if, say, the law of the land requires us to swear to some local religion's god to become married?

Should we obey that law, or should we not?

In any event, the law of the land cannot require you to do such a thing to be married. It can require you to do such a thing to have a civil marriage, but who cares? Anyone can have a civil marriage. It carries no weight with God, and God's views carry no weight with the courts.

In short, the law of the land says that, if I don't file those papers, I cannot list myself as "married" on my taxes. It doesn't address the question of whether the specific person with whom I have not filed those papers is of one flesh with me, in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, til death do us part.

That's outside the scope of civil authority.

 

[LiberatedChick]

What if, say, the law of the land requires us to swear to some local religion's god to become married?

Should we obey that law, or should we not?

In any event, the law of the land cannot require you to do such a thing to be married. It can require you to do such a thing to have a civil marriage, but who cares? Anyone can have a civil marriage. It carries no weight with God, and God's views carry no weight with the courts.

In short, the law of the land says that, if I don't file those papers, I cannot list myself as "married" on my taxes. It doesn't address the question of whether the specific person with whom I have not filed those papers is of one flesh with me, in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, til death do us part.

That's outside the scope of civil authority.

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

If the law of the land contradicts the bible then we don't follow it as the Bible is the true Word of God, otherwise we are called to submit. The law of my land requires such things to be married...even in a Christian ceremony. Here there's only two ways to be properly married and if you don't go through one of these ceremonies you are not married in the eyes of the law, the people and the church. That may sound artificial but I didn't write the Bible or the laws...I'm just following them. However, that said whether you are married in the eyes of God is another matter. Though, whilst it can be argued that someone can be married in the eyes of God without having a ceremony I'm sure it would lead people to call into question their commitment to one another if they can't be bothered to stand before the governing authorities (whether that be in a register office or church) and God to declare there commitment and get it recognised. Not to mention that we are to avoid even the appearance of evil so whilst it may be fine for us, to a non-believer that doesn't understand this it would no doubt be seen as living in sin so that is another reason why I believe the ceremonies and legal side is needed. Else we run the risk of being labelled as hypocrites that preach marriage before sex but then don't get "married" (i.e. go through what is seen as the all important ceremony by the secular world).

 

[seebs]

If the law of the land contradicts the bible then we don't follow it as the Bible is the true Word of God, otherwise we are called to submit.

Objection. Jesus is the Word. Nothing else is the Word, unless it's Jesus, and bibliolatry is a formal heresy.

The law of my land requires such things to be married...even in a Christian ceremony.

No, it requires such things to have the legal status of marriage. It doesn't have any relationship at all to religious marriage.

Here there's only two ways to be properly married and if you don't go through one of these ceremonies you are not married in the eyes of the law, the people and the church. That may sound artificial but I didn't write the Bible or the laws...I'm just following them.

You're conflating them.

Imagine that you live in a state that has "domestic partnership" laws. You get married in church. You get your domestic partnership from a judge. It is patently obvious that the reality of your marriage and the reality of your domestic partnership are totally separate. You can have either without the other. The domestic partnership affects your legal situation, the marriage your moral one.

Now, imagine that, for no good reason, the state tries to call its domestic partnership a "marriage".

That doesn't change anything.

The marriage is still between you and God, and the legal incorporation is still betwen you and the state, and they are still totally unrelated.

The state does not require you to fill out any paperwork to be married. It requires you to fill out paperwork to obtain legal benefits of marriage or civil partnership. That's not the same as being married. Two people who aren't in love and don't sleep together can get a legal marriage, without any vows.

However, that said whether you are married in the eyes of God is another matter. Though, whilst it can be argued that someone can be married in the eyes of God without having a ceremony I'm sure it would lead people to call into question their commitment to one another if they can't be bothered to stand before the governing authorities (whether that be in a register office or church) and God to declare there commitment and get it recognised.

People are admittedly shallow.

Not to mention that we are to avoid even the appearance of evil so whilst it may be fine for us, to a non-believer that doesn't understand this it would no doubt be seen as living in sin so that is another reason why I believe the ceremonies and legal side is needed.

A non-believer won't see us as "living in sin" anyway. Furthermore, those people I've talked to generally see "church marriage but no state marriage" as a more serious commitment than the default conflation of legal and moral status. It tells them you actually considered the issue.

Else we run the risk of being labelled as hypocrites that preach marriage before sex but then don't get "married" (i.e. go through what is seen as the all important ceremony by the secular world).

That's because we are hypocrites, by and large. I don't preach anything on the topic, because it's none of my business... But don't you worry, I've got plenty of hypocrisy left to keep me busy.

 

[LiberatedChick]

Objection. Jesus is the Word. Nothing else is the Word, unless it's Jesus, and bibliolatry is a formal heresy.

Who ever said anything about worshipping books. Don't make assumptions of me based on one sentence.

No, it requires such things to have the legal status of marriage. It doesn't have any relationship at all to religious marriage.

Please read my post as a whole instead of spliting it into sections. I do go on to state that is in the eyes of the law, people and church only.

Imagine that you live in a state that has "domestic partnership" laws. You get married in church. You get your domestic partnership from a judge. It is patently obvious that the reality of your marriage and the reality of your domestic partnership are totally separate. You can have either without the other. The domestic partnership affects your legal situation, the marriage your moral one.

Now, imagine that, for no good reason, the state tries to call its domestic partnership a "marriage".

That doesn't change anything.

The marriage is still between you and God, and the legal incorporation is still betwen you and the state, and they are still totally unrelated.

I'm not combining anything which isn't already combined. I can imagine all I want that I'm in your country but fact of the matter is that I'm not. Here they are combined, here you get married in a church and that's it...it's both a marriage before God and legal. Here they are one and the same because of Christianity being our state religion. There is no separation. I can only write from my experiences and in mine they are one.

The state does not require you to fill out any paperwork to be married. It requires you to fill out paperwork to obtain legal benefits of marriage or civil partnership. That's not the same as being married. Two people who aren't in love and don't sleep together can get a legal marriage, without any vows.

Not here they can't. There is no civil partnership and no real legal benefits of marriage (unless you divorce).

A non-believer won't see us as "living in sin" anyway. Furthermore, those people I've talked to generally see "church marriage but no state marriage" as a more serious commitment than the default conflation of legal and moral status. It tells them you actually considered the issue.

They do here. People love to point out when they see someone else apparently not practicing what they preach. Again, church marriage and being legally married here are combined.

Clearly, I'm seeing a view based strongly on experience in America where, from what I gather in your post church and state are completely separate. Here that is not so. We have a Queen as the head of the church and a state religion and hence marrying in the Church of England is a legally recognised marriage whether you want it to be or not...there is no requirement to file any extra paperwork for this legal status. I shall not be arguing my views any further because they are just that....my views. Just like your views are yours. It is clear to me that we are basing our views, quite rightly, on our experiences but these are completely different and so agreement on this shall never be made. It is therefore pointless doing anything more than I have done already which is state my views.

 

[seebs]

Who ever said anything about worshipping books. Don't make assumptions of me based on one sentence.

We worship the Word. If the Bible were the Word, we would worship it.

Please read my post as a whole instead of spliting it into sections. I do go on to state that is in the eyes of the law, people and church only.

The post as a whole consists of its parts.

I'm not combining anything which isn't already combined.

You're combining things that people tend to assume are the same, but they're not.

You can have a legal marriage which is not valid in the eyes of your church, and you can have a church marriage which is not valid in the eyes of the state. They are separate things, and the use of the word "marriage" for a domestic partnership is very confusing.

I can imagine all I want that I'm in your country but fact of the matter is that I'm not. Here they are combined, here you get married in a church and that's it...it's both a marriage before God and legal.

Fascinating.

Here they are one and the same because of Christianity being our state religion. There is no separation. I can only write from my experiences and in mine they are one.

Are they really one, or are some people just wrong?

Can non-Christians be married at all in your country? They can here.

Not here they can't. There is no civil partnership and no real legal benefits of marriage (unless you divorce).

Fascinating. But... Can someone in your country get a legal marriage without going to a church? If so, that's a civil partnership, and they've just named it wrong.

They do here. People love to point out when they see someone else apparently not practicing what they preach. Again, church marriage and being legally married here are combined.

How does that work out for non-Christians?

Clearly, I'm seeing a view based strongly on experience in America where, from what I gather in your post church and state are completely separate. Here that is not so. We have a Queen as the head of the church and a state religion and hence marrying in the Church of England is a legally recognised marriage whether you want it to be or not...there is no requirement to file any extra paperwork for this legal status.

Okay, so, you automatically get a legal marriage... But other churches might not have that same privilege. I know England, for a long time, didn't recognize Quaker marriages.

 

[LiberatedChick]

You can have a legal marriage which is not valid in the eyes of your church, and you can have a church marriage which is not valid in the eyes of the state. They are separate things, and the use of the word "marriage" for a domestic partnership is very confusing.

Legal marriage here is recognised by the church, church marriage here is recognised by the law. I've never heard of any church say that a civil marriage was not valid. However, the civil view of marriage is essentially the same as the church (i.e. between one man and one woman, for life etc).

Are they really one, or are some people just wrong?

Yes, they are one.

Can non-Christians be married at all in your country? They can here.

Non-Christians can marry here. Many opt to be married in the church even though they don't believe. Many churches will ask couples to attend services for some time if they choose this. Non-Christians can also marry in a civil ceremony, this is completely non-religious. Civil ceremonies and church ceremonies are similar in that certain vows must be stated, a register signed, witnesses present and to sign the register also.

Okay, so, you automatically get a legal marriage... But other churches might not have that same privilege. I know England, for a long time, didn't recognize Quaker marriages.

Yes, I'm unsure whether other denominations are automatically legally recognised. If not and they do want a legally recognised marriage they'd have to also go through the civil ceremony. I know other religions have to do this.

 

[truthnluv]

It doesn't matter where someone is....we are called to follow the laws of the land we're in. So if the laws of the land state that to be married we need to go througha ceremony and sign some papers in front of witnesses then that is what we must do.

First of all, there is no law saying two people have to get legally married in order to be together in a committed relationship. Secondly, we do not have to obey laws that contradict God's word.

Truthnluv

 

[seebs]

Legal marriage here is recognised by the church, church marriage here is recognised by the law. I've never heard of any church say that a civil marriage was not valid. However, the civil view of marriage is essentially the same as the church (i.e. between one man and one woman, for life etc).

Er, what about divorce? Catholics don't recognize remarriage after divorce, and nor do some other groups.

Furthermore, Catholics (and many other Christians) may insist on a sacramental ceremony if there hasn't been one. You may or may not be married, but they're likely to ask you to have a ceremony within the church.

Non-Christians can marry here. Many opt to be married in the church even though they don't believe. Many churches will ask couples to attend services for some time if they choose this. Non-Christians can also marry in a civil ceremony, this is completely non-religious. Civil ceremonies and church ceremonies are similar in that certain vows must be stated, a register signed, witnesses present and to sign the register also.

Okay. But then you can have a civil marriage without a church marriage, yes?

Yes, I'm unsure whether other denominations are automatically legally recognised. If not and they do want a legally recognised marriage they'd have to also go through the civil ceremony. I know other religions have to do this.

Right.

So civil and church marriage are at least partially separate; you can have a legally recognized marriage which your church doesn't recognize, or vice versa, except in the special case where your church is CoE.

Our system just treats everyone as not being of the state religion. If you want a civil marriage, get one. If you want a church marriage, get one.

 

[Johnnz]

So in other words…



No one can cite specific marriage instructions or more specifically rules limiting marriage to only heterosexual couples.



And even though the Christian God is unchanging and perfect he was “lax” about marriage laws and even though he knew about the “lax” thing going on with marriage and was regularly popping behind burring bushes and chatting with everyday people back in those days he just sort of never quite got around to actually correcting the “lax” thing. Until Jesus sort of mentioned something but again wasn’t actually very specific.

Thankfully being a Christian is not about obeying laws, but about learning to know God out of an active relationship with Him. Yes, doctrine is important, but only as a means to get to know Him well. Its the difference between having a 'marriage manual' and being married. Good marrraiges will have good principles operating, but ina living way that no mnaula can properly set out.

Your comments on God's laxity. That's something you will need to question Him about, along with many other big questions. But please note, you will first have to tell Him why Jesus was not your starting point in relating to God.

John
NZ

 

[LiberatedChick]

Secondly, we do not have to obey laws that contradict God's word.

I did go on to state that in a later post

 

[SnowBear]

Thankfully being a Christian is not about obeying laws, but about learning to know God out of an active relationship with Him. Yes, doctrine is important, but only as a means to get to know Him well. Its the difference between having a 'marriage manual' and being married. Good marrraiges will have good principles operating, but ina living way that no mnaula can properly set out.

Your comments on God's laxity. That's something you will need to question Him about, along with many other big questions. But please note, you will first have to tell Him why Jesus was not your starting point in relating to God.

John
NZ

I already have a relationship with the Divine thank you one that does not involve your religion.



This may come as a shock to you but a personal relationship with the Divine does not need to involve your religion or any religion for that matter.



One might note that you were the one who brought up the laxness factor in post number 16. the problem was of course not with any deity but with the many individual men who made up these laws and then claimed divine inspiration to justify them.



As it stands the Christian argument that same sex marriage is not biblical does not have a leg to stand on.

 

[Clarity]

No one can cite specific marriage instructions or more specifically rules limiting marriage to only heterosexual couples.

Genesis 2
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,



"This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called 'woman, [k] '

for she was taken out of man."



24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

In Genesis when marriage was first instituted God made a woman NOT another man as a helper for Adam and this makes it clear that woman were created to compliment and help men. Note also that he only made one woman for the one man when it would have made more sense to make many women as he commands them to multiply and fill the earth(see verse below), surely it would make more sense to create four or five wives to help Adam multiply and fill the earth but god only created one on purpose to show that marriage is supposed to be only between one man and one woman.


Genesis 1
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.



28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Note also that he only made one woman for the one man when it would have made more sense to make many women as he commands them to multiply and fill the earth, surely it would make more sense to create four or five wives to help Adam multiply and fill the earth but god only created one on purpose to show that marriage is supposed to be only between one man and one woman.

Hey Clarity,

Perhaps because it was the creation of each sex and a picture of reproduction, thus a biological theme. It wasn't a socialogical premise laying out absolutes and boundaries for marriage. If God did desire that, then one would think that He would have corrected polygamy when it first came on to the scene with Lamech.

If we are to make a "assumption" that God wants us to be married to one wife based on this text (for it says this nowhere in the actual text), are we then also to assume that we are to be naked as in the text? Are we to assume that we are to marry all available women (as Adam did) as in the text?

We assume much, in the absence of God's stated instruction. For He nowhere corrects the practice for the common man within the entirity of Scripture.

Eph.

 

[Lokisdottir]

Clarity:

So everybody should model their lives after Adam and Eve, and do exactly as they did?

Adam and Eve didn't have computers.

Adam and Eve didn't drive cars.

In regards to their family life, Adam and Eve were single children, so to speak. They had no brothers or sisters, because God didn't create any. Therefore, no family should ever have more than one child, because having siblings is wrong. Adam and Eve didn't, so it's a sin.

They also didn't have bellybuttons, or so I've been told. Let's abolish those, too! Every child must have his or her bellybutton surgically removed at birth.

See how silly this sounds?

If God's going to create two humans to "start things off," of course they're going to be a man and a woman. Two men or two women couldn't reproduce, and when there are only two people on the planet, reproducing is pretty important.

However, there are 6 billion now. Reproducing isn't a matter of urgency anymore--in fact, people should probably start reproducing less. Maybe that's why God made gay people: population control.

 

[Corey]

To answer your last questions, probably for legal reasons.

In the Catholic church, it didn't happen until the mid-16th century. Requiring a priest to intercede was Rome's response to the Protestant "heresies."

Learned that bit of info this past weekend

 

[seebs]

I think the seeds of Catholic marriage policy actually go back at least to the 1100s.

 

[Clarity]

If we are to make a "assumption" that God wants us to be married to one wife based on this text (for it says this nowhere in the actual text), are we then also to assume that we are to be naked as in the text? Are we to assume that we are to marry all available women (as Adam did) as in the text?

Matthew 19
4“Haven't you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ [b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Jesus refers to this text when dealing with marriage which is why I quoted it. As for being naked this ended when God clothed Adam and Eve and made coverings for them showing that he no longer wanted them to be naked, however monogamous marriage was never ended by god in this way as was nudity.

Genesis 3
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

Note also that Jesus changes the text from they shall become one flesh to these TWO shall become one flesh so now it is clear that marriage must be between two people. No you cannot assume you should marry all available women, this is plain absurd and is not part of the example as there is only one woman available(not many) and so you cannot use Adam marrying one woman to justify someone else marrying all available women as the analogy is not present. This is like saying that if my mum allows me to have the last piece of cake on one ocassion (so i eat all the available pieces of cake) then the next time she when she has a cake she will divide it in the same way meaning that she will allow me to have all the available pieces of cake (ie the whole cake), when really she will only allow me to have one piece as before, the analogy can only be used to allow me to have one piece of cake.

So everybody should model their lives after Adam and Eve, and do exactly as they did?

No that is not what i said, i mean that everyones MARRIAGE (and only marriage) should be modelled on that of Adam and Eve not everyting else because in the bible Adam and Eve are used as a model for marriage.(see verse above and others below)

Matthew 19
4“Haven't you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ [b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Mark 10
5“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.’(this is a reference to Gen2:24 where the marriage of Adam and eve is described)[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Yet again marriage occurrs when TWO become one flesh not three or four or five as with polygamy but it makes it clear that marriage is supposed to be between two people.


1 Corinthians 6

16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b](another refernce to Gen2:24 which describes the marriage of Adam and Eve) 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

Yet again marriage occurrs when TWO become one flesh not three or four or five as with polygamy but it makes it clear that marriage is supposed to be between two people.



Ephesians 5

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church– 30for we are members of his body. 31“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”(another refernce to Gen2:24 which describes the marriage of Adam and Eve where the word they is replaced by two) [c] 32This is a profound mystery–but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


When you study the bible it is clear that Adam and Eve are the examples of marriage that God wants us to follow as it is always referred to when dealing with marriage.

Maybe that's why God made gay people: population control.

:o
God didn't make Gay people he made two heterosexual monogamous people(Adam and eve) and it wasn't until after the fall and the entrance of sin that homosexuality existed, there is also no concrete evidence to prove that people are born gay and cannot change but that is another issue for another thread.

 

[seebs]

There's some incredible prooftexting going on, ignoring a number of relevant passages and focusing on details of others in ways that change their meaning substantially.

You can't just bold and upsize a word out of a Bible passage and not be changing its meaning. You don't get to decide which words God emphasizes.

From the Hebrew perspective, any given marriage consists of two people. Some people participated in more than one marriage.

 

[Clarity]

You can't just bold and upsize a word out of a Bible passage and not be changing its meaning. You don't get to decide which words God emphasizes.

A word being bold and large in no way changes its meaning, it helps to highlight the meaning. Jesus did emphasise the word two as he changes the words from genesis

Genesis 2
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Jesus speaking in mark 10
7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.’

Jesus clears up the confusion about polygamy by saying that marriage is between TWO and not more than two as some had falsely assumed it to be from looking at the word they in Genesis.

From the Hebrew perspective, any given marriage consists of two people. Some people participated in more than one marriage.

There is no verse in the bible that says we are allowed to participate in more than one marriage.