Marriage

[Sophia7]

Ok, but I say again... Given that the origin of women has pretty much been proven to not be from Adam's rib, you have to like the irony of people claiming that as fact and then snarling/poo-pooing the mythology of other faiths.

OK, but I look at this a bit differently. I see all of the creation narratives (and flood narratives, for that matter) of ancient civilizations as different understandings of the same event. My personal belief is that the Bible tells it the way it actually happened (although obviously these stories were originally passed down orally and were not written until later) and that the other stories evolved as people's religious beliefs changed. They still had some of the same basic elements, but most of the details were different.

I don't think anyone is dumb for believing in myths or for holding religious beliefs with which I disagree. I do believe that those other myths are false and that they lead people away from worshiping the God of the Bible, whom I believe is the only true God, but I have nothing against people who accept them or who place their faith in other things. I respect their right to practice their religious beliefs. However, there is nothing wrong with believing that one version of the creation story is true and the others false. There is no point in adhering to a belief if a person doesn't think it matters whether it is right or wrong.

I know that you disagree with me on many things, and that's fine. You are perfectly welcome to consider all of these stories myths made up by people to explain the natural world. As a matter of personal conviction, though, if I did not believe in the truth of the Bible and the falsehood of other belief systems, I would have to cease being a Christian. So I can understand why there is so much debate about whether the Bible is true and reliable.

As far as the marriage question, though, I was simply giving the biblical evidence as I believe it and as I thought the OP was asking.

 

[Leanna]

I disagree. There was religious marriage in the Bible. Marriage was founded on spiritual principles. Jesus Himself said the following, quoting from Genesis:



It is God who joins people in marriage, not the state. The civil aspect of marriage is now considered important for legal reasons, but God ordained marriage and joined Adam and Eve in marriage long before there was ever a need for civil laws. Marriage was fundamental to the religious identity of the people of Israel as well; God even prohibited them from marrying people from the surrounding nations so that they would not be led away from Him and tempted to follow other gods:



Also, people in Bible times had weddings. In fact, they had elaborate ceremonies, with lavishly adorned brides, and feasts that lasted for several days. They did not just hop into bed and that was it. There was the negotiating of a bride price beforehand, but marriage was more than just a civil contract. It was a sacred covenant, not to be entered into lightly and not to be broken.

Here is one more text, in which God describes marriage as a covenant that binds people both physically and spiritually:



God also used the marriage covenant as an illustration to point out Israel's unfaithfulness (see Ezekiel 16). It was a fitting parallel because both the marriage covenant and the covenant between God and Israel involved sacred vows and promises that could not simply be broken at will. They were spiritually binding.

Marriage is first and foremost, according to the Bible, a spiritual joining of a man and a woman by God before they also become "one flesh," regardless of whatever civil agreements might also be involved. Sex or cohabitation or common-law marriage or whatever you want to call it does not equal biblical marriage.

Thanks for writing that because I started reading this thread and was saying to myself "ohhhh man, now I have to go write this big thing about what the Bible really says" but hey you did the work for me!

 

[Sophia7]

Thanks for writing that because I started reading this thread and was saying to myself "ohhhh man, now I have to go write this big thing about what the Bible really says" but hey you did the work for me!

You're welcome!

 

[KCDAD]

Marriage is first and foremost, according to the Bible, a spiritual joining of a man and a woman by God before they also become "one flesh," regardless of whatever civil agreements might also be involved. Sex or cohabitation or common-law marriage or whatever you want to call it does not equal biblical marriage.

Why do we associate these Biblical teachings with marriage? What we call marriage today is NOTHING like what you are telling me God intended. So do we need to redefine marriage or come up with a better, more exclusive word?
AND WHAT IS WRONG with common law marriage? What is the difference between that "legal" marriage? (Other than the fees paid.)

 

[Sophia7]

Why do we associate these Biblical teachings with marriage? What we call marriage today is NOTHING like what you are telling me God intended. So do we need to redefine marriage or come up with a better, more exclusive word?
AND WHAT IS WRONG with common law marriage? What is the difference between that "legal" marriage? (Other than the fees paid.)

Well, maybe we do need to redefine it. The problem is that different people want to redefine it in different ways. Some conservative Christians have entered into what they call "covenant marriages," which they feel are closer to God's ideal and make it harder to dissolve the marriage without biblical reasons. Some people want to keep marriage between a man and a woman while others want to redefine it to allow homosexual couples to be legally married. Some believe that marriage is irrelevant and should be done away with completely. There is a lot of controversy over this. And any redefinition will make some people unhappy. In our system of government, though, obviously it wouldn't be a good idea to define marriage by law in Christian terms. People who are not Christians--and even some Christians--do not have the same beliefs about God's role in marriage. Our laws have to take that into account.

Personally, I think it should be up to the voters in each state to decide how marriage is defined when these issues come up. As Christians, we are given the directive (in Romans 13) to follow the laws of the land (unless they conflict with God's laws). In our government, unlike in Bible times, we have some voice as far as electing our legislative representatives and voting on certain measures. And we all--whether Christian or not--should use our voice to vote according to our conscience.

Also, I think there is a place for civil marriage in today's society because it provides certain protections and guarantees under the law, apart from the religious ideals of marriage. To some people that is important. Sure, two people can make a commitment to each other for life without that. Especially if they make such a commitment with the realization that God is their witness, they will be held accountable if they break their promises. The problem that I have with common-law marriage, in a civil sense, is that it takes too long to gain legal status. I think that a civil ceremony is a better option for those who do not want to go the traditional religious route with a church wedding because people can make their commitments in public (it's harder to break a promise that other people have heard you make), and they have marital rights and obligations under the law immediately. Then if something does go wrong later, they have some legal recourse.

 

[Vedant]

I can only speak for myself, but marriage to me is a religious act. Others will argue that it is only a legal act. Still others will argue that it's a social construct. For me, it's something sacred and beautiful, love between two people. Whatever circumstances may be today, the love between a man and a woman is still idealized today, in religion and outside in the mainstream (movies and music e.g.). Too bad it's only the lucky and blessed that actually get true love.

Yes, I'm bitter right now, but I'm also a realist.

 

[SimplyMe]

I can only speak for myself, but marriage to me is a religious act. Others will argue that it is only a legal act. Still others will argue that it's a social construct. For me, it's something sacred and beautiful, love between two people.

Actually, I would say the facts clearly support that marriage is now both a religious and legal act. Which way it started is immaterial, as society has co opted marriage and defined it in various religions as well as law. In fact, in many countries in Europe this is exactly what happens; the couple goes to city hall to be married legally, followed by a church ceremony to be married by their religion. If, in fact, the ceremony was purely religious and did not contain legal benefits and responsibilities we would not be having this discussion.

To me, the question is whether we allow government to continue to define marriage or should we remove the government from marriage, kind of the way they have in those European countries? As long as government defines marriage, it has to apply the right to marry equally and not based on what various religions may claim.

Whatever circumstances may be today, the love between a man and a woman is still idealized today, in religion and outside in the mainstream (movies and music e.g.). Too bad it's only the lucky and blessed that actually get true love.

Yes, I'm bitter right now, but I'm also a realist.

Actually, same-sex true love is also idealized in some religions and the mainstream (Brokeback is only the most recent example). True, it does appear to be the lucky and blessed who actually find it, though I'd also include those couples that work hard at it.

 

[levi501]

marriage is a piece of paper given by state that god needs before he'll say it's ok for two people to do it.

 

[KCDAD]

I would argue the purpose of marriage is simply to give children a name and family... love is not encouraged, strengthened or assisted by marriage. Committment is not helped by marriage. Maturity is sticking together not because of a legal document but because of a personal committment. It is a civil document to prove committment was intended when the committment is no longer there.

 

[SimplyMe]

I would argue the purpose of marriage is simply to give children a name and family... love is not encouraged, strengthened or assisted by marriage. Committment is not helped by marriage. Maturity is sticking together not because of a legal document but because of a personal committment. It is a civil document to prove committment was intended when the committment is no longer there.

I do believe that commitment is helped by marriage. Whether it is legal or religious, standing up before friends and/or family and making that commitment publicly does strengthen the commitment. I will agree, though, the commitment is no stronger than the will of those entering into the marriage.

 

[KCDAD]

I do believe that commitment is helped by marriage. Whether it is legal or religious, standing up before friends and/or family and making that commitment publicly does strengthen the commitment. I will agree, though, the commitment is no stronger than the will of those entering into the marriage.

So you just contradicted yourself.. it does strengthen it but it doesn't. It is the commitment between the people that matters.

 

[rosalind110]

I disagree. There was religious marriage in the Bible

I believe that true 'marriage' is the exclusive and permenant commitment of two people to each other before God. In this way, it is religious in the biblical sense. However, I think that the question in this thread is about whether the civil/legal proceedings are necessary to make it a true 'marriage' in the sight of God, and I personally would say that they are not.

 

[Leanna]

Let's put religion aside then and discuss what benefit does a legal marriage contract provide for the relationship?

For one thing, you can be covered under one another's insurance which is very helpful if either of you lose a job. Then you own everything 50-50 such as a house which is much easier in marriage.

Money aside, let's talk about children. Children are a challenge to a relationship, but each parent has an obligation to the child. Without a legal marriage contract a man can pack a suitcase and walk out the door without looking back.... sooooo much easier. With a marriage contract this is not possible. Eventually you have to see them again, divorce, pay child support, etc. etc. which makes people less likely to get up and walk out of the door because they are committed.

Then there is committment. I don't buy this "I am committed to her because I love her" empty talk. If you are committed, then you are willing to have a piece of paper that binds you together. Why? Because you ARE committed and since you know you aren't leaving you have nothing to fear by being legally bound to the other person. If you are uncommitted, then you live together. Legal marriage is committment.... living together is not.

 

[SimplyMe]

So you just contradicted yourself.. it does strengthen it but it doesn't. It is the commitment between the people that matters.

No, it requires people to have that commitment and work toward it. That commitment is then strengthened by the public expression of that commitment. If you've ever heard the idea that a goal not written is not a goal, it's the same principle; it provides an additional level of accountability to keeping your commitment.

 

[rosalind110]

Let's put religion aside then and discuss what benefit does a legal marriage contract provide for the relationship?

For one thing, you can be covered under one another's insurance which is very helpful if either of you lose a job. Then you own everything 50-50 such as a house which is much easier in marriage.

Money aside, let's talk about children. Children are a challenge to a relationship, but each parent has an obligation to the child. Without a legal marriage contract a man can pack a suitcase and walk out the door without looking back.... sooooo much easier. With a marriage contract this is not possible. Eventually you have to see them again, divorce, pay child support, etc. etc. which makes people less likely to get up and walk out of the door because they are committed.

Then there is committment. I don't buy this "I am committed to her because I love her" empty talk. If you are committed, then you are willing to have a piece of paper that binds you together. Why? Because you ARE committed and since you know you aren't leaving you have nothing to fear by being legally bound to the other person. If you are uncommitted, then you live together. Legal marriage is committment.... living together is not.

I still think that we are looking at this from two different points of view. I agree that, in the event of a death or accident etc, it is legally much simpler to be married in the civil sense and I don't see why people shpuldn't confirm it in law. However, I wouldn't say that the commitment in its spiritual sense is only there if you go through the ceremony and get the legal piece of paper. My feeling is that the commitment is something that comes from the heart and has to be there first, and the paper just confirms this in law. If the lifetime commitment is real, piece of paper or no, the children's father isn't going to walk out in any case, and if it's not, and he does, it was never there in spirit in the first place, legalities apart. I don't know the law in the States, but, here in the UK, if you have children with a man, whether or not you are legally married to him, his name will be on the birth certificate and he will have legal responsibilty for them. Similarly, if you have owned a house with him and contributed to it for a certain time, or have insurance with him (if you mean health insurance, we have a free health service here, so it doesn't arise), your rights will be much the same as if they would be if you were legally married to him.

 

[SimplyMe]

I still think that we are looking at this from two different points of view. I agree that, in the event of a death or accident etc, it is legally much simpler to be married in the civil sense and I don't see why people shpuldn't confirm it in law. However, I wouldn't say that the commitment in its spiritual sense is only there if you go through the ceremony and get the legal piece of paper. My feeling is that the commitment is something that comes from the heart and has to be there first, and the paper just confirms this in law. If the lifetime commitment is real, piece of paper or no, the children's father isn't going to walk out in any case, and if it's not, and he does, it was never there in spirit in the first place, legalities apart. I don't know the law in the States, but, here in the UK, if you have children with a man, whether or not you are legally married to him, his name will be on the birth certificate and he will have legal responsibilty for them. Similarly, if you have owned a house with him and contributed to it for a certain time, or have insurance with him (if you mean health insurance, we have a free health service here, so it doesn't arise), your rights will be much the same as if they would be if you were legally married to him.

The laws in the US vary by state, but a few states do recognize common law marriages. The linked Wikipedia lists the various state laws about "common law" or "informal marriages".

 

[Leanna]

I don't see why people shpuldn't confirm it in law. However, I wouldn't say that the commitment in its spiritual sense is only there if you go through the ceremony and get the legal piece of paper. My feeling is that the commitment is something that comes from the heart and has to be there first, and the paper just confirms this in law.

I think that if the committment is there then they will get legally married, and those who go on this big fuss about how they don't want to... they just don't want the committment. They want to be able to walk out whenever they want, and use lame arguements about the government and other things to justify their non-committment.

 

[KCDAD]

I think that if the committment is there then they will get legally married, and those who go on this big fuss about how they don't want to... they just don't want the committment. They want to be able to walk out whenever they want, and use lame arguements about the government and other things to justify their non-committment.

See, I think it cheapens a committment to give the authority to the government ( or similiarly, to have a prenup). "Our committment is so real and so honest and strong that it is between us (and God, if that is your bent) and is none of the government's business. We are not doing it for health benefits, or tax breaks, or insurance, or inheritance..." those things being of course their own business and no one elses.

 

[rosalind110]

I think that if the committment is there then they will get legally married, and those who go on this big fuss about how they don't want to... they just don't want the committment. They want to be able to walk out whenever they want, and use lame arguements about the government and other things to justify their non-committment.

It's very true that there doesn't seem to be a good reason why two people who are truly committed shouldn't make it legal. On the other hand, people get legally married for all kinds of reasons based on convenience, and not all of them are to do with committment or with love. Thus, while legal marriage might be a good and public way to confirm a committment that is already there, it doesn't necessarily signify the committed relationship that I see as the true 'marriage'.

 

[rosalind110]

Also, people in Bible times had weddings. In fact, they had elaborate ceremonies, with lavishly adorned brides, and feasts that lasted for several days. They did not just hop into bed and that was it. There was the negotiating of a bride price beforehand, but marriage was more than just a civil contract. It was a sacred covenant, not to be entered into lightly and not to be broken.

It is true that man later chose to add a celebration, public declaration and various sorts of contract into the marriage equation, but there is no getting away from the fact that, in the beginning, in the Garden of Eden, the extent of marriage was that God told two people (Adam and Eve) that from now on they were man and wife. No contracts were made, no ceremony took place, there were no guests or celebrations, no judge or minister, and nobody signed any pieces of paper - God simply ordained that the two come together as 'one flesh', or, as you put it, 'just hop into bed together and that was it'. In that case, there wasn't even a requirement for exclusive committment in His sight, let alone anything like the legal procedure that we now term 'marriage'.