Marriage

[Polycarp1]

All the "gay marriage" threads here and in E&M lead me to notice that people are bringing different assumptions to the table about what constitutes a marriage. So I'm starting this thread to explore those assumptions. I want it to address four questions:

1. Biblically, what was considered a marriage? Are there clear pointers in Scripture to what pleases God about marriages?

2. What constitutes a Christian marriage? Do the specifics differ from what God approved of or allowed in Scripture?

3. What constitutes a civil marriage, in countries such as I believe we all live in where the Church does not dictate what the state may recognize as a valid marriage (and by extension how one is ended)?

4. What does "recognizing" the marriage of another mean? What is our Christian duty as regards civil actions regarding marriage that we may not approve of?

While I'm absolutely certain that somebody is going to bring up gay marriages in this thread, let me be clear that that is not the topic here. We're addressing what of the overwhelming majority of man-woman relationships of quasi-marital characteristics meet the above questions. If someone wants to make clear that man-man or woman-woman reklationships do or do not fit any of the above definitions, that's their privilege. But I'd request that the thread not be hijacked into that already-discussed-at-length topic, and that we focus on discussing what marriage has meant and today means Biblically, in Christian understanding, and in civil society -- that members report, and staff moderate, posts that go off on that or another hijack from the stated topic.

And, because I know it's going to be a very early post element anyway, to get us started, here's Jesus on marriage and divorce, fro Matthew 19:

1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

 

[Jase]

While I can't comment on the Biblical origin of marriage, since I don't believe it exists explicitly, I think wiki brings up a good summary of marriage both Christian and civil.

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To summarize:

Basically, marriage predates recorded history. The earliest known records are from Hammurabi's code.

Through most of European history, marriage was a business contract between families who arranged their children's marriage. Romantic love was not viewed as a requirement, or important.

The Greeks had no formal ceremony for marriage, and only required both parties to enter with mutual agreement. Men were typically in their 20s or 30s, and usually married girls in their early teens to ensure they were virgins after coming back from war.

Romans had several different types of marriage, including ceremonial where witnesses were required, and a woman gave up all her family rights to be at the authority of her husband. Or a free marriage, where she retained all her families rights.

The early Christian era viewed marriage as a private issue with no religious ceremony required. It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation under Luther and Calvin that marriage became a state issue. Martin Luther did not view marriage as a religious matter, he called it a "worldly thing". In the 15th or 16th century, John Calvin and his protestant peers enacted the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which was the first order for marriage to be both registered with the state, and consecrated in church for it to be valid.

So essentially, marriage originated as a legal business contract, and usually was arranged. Romantic love and religious ceremony were rarely part of the equation. Martin Luther considered it entirely a state issue, as he thought it was of the "world". It wasn't until John Calvin that marriage ever took the form of state registered and held in church.

I believe the whole notion of Biblical marriage is unfounded, since our concept of "Christian marriage" has only existed for maybe 400 years following the Protestant Reformation. Marriage has always been primarily a business relationship, nothing more.

 

[Mr Dave]

All the "gay marriage" threads here and in E&M lead me to notice that people are bringing different assumptions to the table about what constitutes a marriage. So I'm starting this thread to explore those assumptions. I want it to address four questions:

1. Biblically, what was considered a marriage? Are there clear pointers in Scripture to what pleases God about marriages?

2. What constitutes a Christian marriage? Do the specifics differ from what God approved of or allowed in Scripture?

3. What constitutes a civil marriage, in countries such as I believe we all live in where the Church does not dictate what the state may recognize as a valid marriage (and by extension how one is ended)?

4. What does "recognizing" the marriage of another mean? What is our Christian duty as regards civil actions regarding marriage that we may not approve of?

While I'm absolutely certain that somebody is going to bring up gay marriages in this thread, let me be clear that that is not the topic here. We're addressing what of the overwhelming majority of man-woman relationships of quasi-marital characteristics meet the above questions. If someone wants to make clear that man-man or woman-woman reklationships do or do not fit any of the above definitions, that's their privilege. But I'd request that the thread not be hijacked into that already-discussed-at-length topic, and that we focus on discussing what marriage has meant and today means Biblically, in Christian understanding, and in civil society -- that members report, and staff moderate, posts that go off on that or another hijack from the stated topic.

And, because I know it's going to be a very early post element anyway, to get us started, here's Jesus on marriage and divorce, fro Matthew 19:

1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

1. Marriage between a male and a female. Talk of adultery as grounds for divorce shows that it is between two people and any extra would be wrong.
Titus 1:6, only being married once is best.

2. A Christian Marriage is one that takes place in a church building with an active involvement of God. From the Methodist Worship Book, "A Christian Marriage is an act of worship in which marriage is celebrated as a gift of God and the joy of the couple is shared and their commitment to each other is witnessed by family and friends." Christian marriage is not just a ceremony, but an act of worship.

3. A civil marriage differs. (Being a British citizen, with an established religion, there is a difference). A civil marriage does not take place in a religious setting. A civil marriage is a ceremony by which the state can deem the couple to be joined. See last two paragraphs.

4. Recognising marriage is saying that the couple have gone through an approved marriage ceremony and that you deem them to be committed to each other, and have made the vows necessary to marriage.
Our Christian duty never changes, to show God's love to people but not forsaking our integrity and adherence to our faith in God.

 

[Zaac]

All the "gay marriage" threads here and in E&M lead me to notice that people are bringing different assumptions to the table about what constitutes a marriage. So I'm starting this thread to explore those assumptions. I want it to address four questions:

1. Biblically, what was considered a marriage? Are there clear pointers in Scripture to what pleases God about marriages?

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

He didn't unite a man with another man and call him husband or wife. Nor did He unite a woman with another woman and call her husband or wife.

This is simply one of those Biblical foundational truths that if changed, you change the nature of everything that God intended.

14 You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. [e] So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. Malachi 2:14-15


You don't have to go any farther than the beginning of God's word.

2. What constitutes a Christian marriage? Do the specifics differ from what God approved of or allowed in Scripture?

You're already off the mark. There is marriage as ordained by God in Genesis 2. It has not changed. Man has attempted to change it, but God has not changed it.

3. What constitutes a civil marriage, in countries such as I believe we all live in where the Church does not dictate what the state may recognize as a valid marriage (and by extension how one is ended)?

Irrelevant when dealing with what God says marriage is.

4. What does "recognizing" the marriage of another mean? What is our Christian duty as regards civil actions regarding marriage that we may not approve of?

Our Christian duty is to preach the truth of God's word. If the marriage goes against God's word, then say so.

 

[Archivist]

The following articles on this topic are worth reading:

History of Marriage in Western Civilization

Medieval and Renaissance Marriage:

http://thewitness.org/archive/april2000/marriage.html

As was already pointed out by Jase, marraige was viewed as a private matter in the early Christian era.

The third article that I cited notes that during the Medieval period marriage was viewed as a two-step process with seperate betrothal and nuptial ceremonies. Sex was permitted after the betrothal but before the formal marriage ceremony, leading the article author to reach the following conclusions:

"There are some tentative conclusions that may be drawn from a consideration of the entry into marriage during earlier periods.

First, there is no longer any provision for the two-staged entry into marriage. In the absence of this, it is possible to read the practice of cohabiting but not-yet-married couples as a return to earlier informalities and as a rejection, not so much of Christian marriage, but of the bourgeois form of it that became established at the end of the 18th century and was then consolidated in the Victorian era.

Secondly, Christian marriage in the modern period has accommodated enormous changes (which have largely been forgotten) and must be expected to accommodate further changes in this new century. The Protestant denial of the sacramentality of marriage, the social permission accorded to marrying parties to choose their partners for themselves, the incorporation of romantic love into the meanings of marriage, the abolition of betrothal and informal marriage, the widespread acceptance by almost all churches of the use of contraception within marriage, the increasing acceptance by the churches of the ending of marriage (whether by divorce or annulment) -- all indicate that Christian marriage is a remarkably flexible institution. There may be a deep irony here. Those conservative Christians who are generally opposed to changes to marriage on historical grounds do not always appear to be familiar with the history.

Thirdly, Christian morality should not equate pre-marital chastity with the expectation that marrying couples should not make love before their wedding. It would be dishonest to assert or assume that the tradition is unanimous about the matter or that no other way of entry into marriage had ever been tried, or that no theological grounds were available for thinking differently. Yet this is what much official Christian literature still does.

Fourthly, the possibility exists that the old medieval theories of marriage, which were responsible for the practice of betrothal, may be serviceable in the construction of the postmodern theology of entry into marriage which would have considerable practical value at the present time."

 

[Zaac]

While I can't comment on the Biblical origin of marriage, since I don't believe it exists explicitly, I think wiki brings up a good summary of marriage both Christian and civil.

One of the reasons why the Saints don't receive counsel from some is that it is obvious that the counsel is worldly and of the devil as James 3 says.

To go straight from dismissing what God's word says about marriage because it is thought to not be explicit to accepting what sinful men think about marriage is is a clear indicator about where men go wrong when dealing with the things of God.

3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Jude :3-4

Basically, marriage predates recorded history. The earliest known records are from Hammurabi's code.

If God inspired men to write down what He says took place in the beginning, how does it predate recorded history?

The problem here is once again the same thing that serpent did in the garden of Eden. People are constantly questioning wheteher God "actually" said something and breeding confusion that results when people believe God's word is less than the absolute truth.

And so Polycarp1, I love you. But as long as there are people calling God's absolute into question, this thread will go the way of the others.

 

[Zaac]

The following articles on this topic are worth reading:

History of Marriage in Western Civilization

Medieval and Renaissance Marriage:

http://thewitness.org/archive/april2000/marriage.html

As was already pointed out by Jase, marraige was viewed as a private matter in the early Christian era.

The third article that I cited notes that during the Medieval period marriage was viewed as a two-step process with seperate betrothal and nuptial ceremonies. Sex was permitted after the betrothal but before the formal marriage ceremony, leading the article author to reach the following conclusions:

"There are some tentative conclusions that may be drawn from a consideration of the entry into marriage during earlier periods.

First, there is no longer any provision for the two-staged entry into marriage. In the absence of this, it is possible to read the practice of cohabiting but not-yet-married couples as a return to earlier informalities and as a rejection, not so much of Christian marriage, but of the bourgeois form of it that became established at the end of the 18th century and was then consolidated in the Victorian era.

Secondly, Christian marriage in the modern period has accommodated enormous changes (which have largely been forgotten) and must be expected to accommodate further changes in this new century. The Protestant denial of the sacramentality of marriage, the social permission accorded to marrying parties to choose their partners for themselves, the incorporation of romantic love into the meanings of marriage, the abolition of betrothal and informal marriage, the widespread acceptance by almost all churches of the use of contraception within marriage, the increasing acceptance by the churches of the ending of marriage (whether by divorce or annulment) -- all indicate that Christian marriage is a remarkably flexible institution. There may be a deep irony here. Those conservative Christians who are generally opposed to changes to marriage on historical grounds do not always appear to be familiar with the history.

Thirdly, Christian morality should not equate pre-marital chastity with the expectation that marrying couples should not make love before their wedding. It would be dishonest to assert or assume that the tradition is unanimous about the matter or that no other way of entry into marriage had ever been tried, or that no theological grounds were available for thinking differently. Yet this is what much official Christian literature still does.

Fourthly, the possibility exists that the old medieval theories of marriage, which were responsible for the practice of betrothal, may be serviceable in the construction of the postmodern theology of entry into marriage which would have considerable practical value at the present time."

Again, this is crazy and will do NOTHING but give a man-centric answer.

Marriage started with GOD. And the only thing looking at man is going to do is give what man THINKS of marriage instead of what God SAYS of marriage.

 

[Jase]

Zaac stop derailing the thread. Marriage existed far longer than any biblical myth you might claim was the start of marriage.

 

[Zaac]

Zaac stop derailing the thread. Marriage existed far longer than any biblical myth you might claim was the start of marriage.

God's word is not a myth no matter what the naysayers say.

3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Jude 3-4

 

[Archivist]

Again, this is crazy and will do NOTHING but give a man-centric answer. Marriage started with GOD. And the only thing looking at man is going to do is give what man THINKS of marriage instead of what God SAYS of marriage.

Apparently you didn't atke the time to read the three articles that I referenced. You should. You might learn something on this topic.

Where in scripture does it say that a marriage has to be in a church? Where does it say that the father has to givce the bride away? Where does it say that the groom has to ask the bride's father for her hand in marriage?

These are all customs that have developed over the years, and the articles I cited note taht those customs have changed over the years. As Jase and I have both pointed out, marraige was viewed as an entirely private matter by the early Christian churches.

 

[Archivist]

God's word is not a myth no matter what the naysayers say.

No one in this thread has claimed that it is.

 

[Zaac]

Apparently you didn't atke the time to read the three articles that I referenced. You should. You might learn something on this topic.

For the purposes of a marriage thread and the questions that were asked by Polycarp1, I'll stick with God's word.

Where in scripture does it say that a marriage has to be in a church?

I didn't say anything about a marriage having to be in a church.

Where does it say that the father has to givce the bride away? Where does it say that the groom has to ask the bride's father for her hand in marriage?

Irrelevant to the questions the OP asked which again is why it is futile to take the discussion beyond what God's word says.

Everything else is what man has attempted to make marriage into.

This is like those bad theology word studies that some do to disprove what God's word says.

If we want to CORRECTLY know what marriage is supposed to be, then we need to deal with what the One who started marriage says.

These are all customs that have developed over the years, and the articles I cited note taht those customs have changed over the years. As Jase and I have both pointed out, marraige was viewed as an entirely private matter by the early Christian churches.

And as I have said, the early Christian church didn't decide what marriage is. God did.

 

[Polycarp1]

Just for the record, Zaac, while I did have an ulterior motive in starting this thread, it was not calling your views, or anyone else's, of what constitutes a Christian marriage into question. It was to get all of us "reading on the same page" -- understanding what it is that each other is saying. That is, after all, the value of CF as opposed to sitting in our own churches' Amen corners where we do not address the opinions of those who do not agree with us.

For example, this is the first time you have spelled out your belief that what God said throughout Scrpture and Christian marriage are identical. It was an underpinning of your thought, as I now see, but I hadn't realized it until you said it outright. (BTW, I am curious about your view on passages where God seems to approve of multiple wives, as in Jacob taking Leah and Rachel. My guess is that you will tell me they were divinely-ordained special exceptions to His overall principle, to fulfill His will in specific circumstances. But I'd love to know how you see it.)

Thanks for understanding this. I admire your zeal greatly, brother, even if we differ on how to properly follow our Lord in specifics.

 

[onemorequestion]

All the "gay marriage" threads here and in E&M lead me to notice that people are bringing different assumptions to the table about what constitutes a marriage. So I'm starting this thread to explore those assumptions. I want it to address four questions:

1. Biblically, what was considered a marriage? Are there clear pointers in Scripture to what pleases God about marriages?

"For THIS reason," said Adam. It seems that the implication is for an appropriate life partner.

2. What constitutes a Christian marriage? Do the specifics differ from what God approved of or allowed in Scripture?

It seems that equality of persons is important in a "Christian" marriage. Jesus described a "Christian marriage as Adam did after God made woman for man.

3. What constitutes a civil marriage, in countries such as I believe we all live in where the Church does not dictate what the state may recognize as a valid marriage (and by extension how one is ended)?

This is of no importance to Christian marriage. ONLY, when the world bargaes it way into demanding that we celebrate it, do we need to contend for the faith. For example. "Gay marriage" is anathema and impossible for "Christians to recognize. There should be no contention on this issue between Christians, simply, because it is impossible.

4. What does "recognizing" the marriage of another mean? What is our Christian duty as regards civil actions regarding marriage that we may not approve of?

Ah, so the goal of this thread is for the acceptance of gay marriage? That would be no different than Christians celebrating Nero's marriage to Sporus. That is simply impossible to do. Then or now.

While I'm absolutely certain that somebody is going to bring up gay marriages in this thread,

Refer to the first four-words of your thread here. Are you trying to make it out that this thread is NOT about gay marriage?

C'mon now.

. . . let me be clear that that is not the topic here. We're addressing what of the overwhelming majority of man-woman relationships of quasi-marital characteristics meet the above questions. If someone wants to make clear that man-man or woman-woman relationships do or do not fit any of the above definitions, that's their privilege.

Uh yeah. By the way, same gender marriage does not exist in Christian truth. So, that ends that.

But I'd request that the thread not be hijacked into that already-discussed-at-length topic, and that we focus on discussing what marriage has meant and today means Biblically, in Christian understanding, and in civil society -- that members report, and staff moderate, posts that go off on that or another hijack from the stated topic.

Christian marriage is presented as the first example (or second I guess) of equality between men and women. A Christian marriage is between willing partners that are "in love" with Christ and each other in Christ. Pure and simple.

And, because I know it's going to be a very early post element anyway, to get us started, here's Jesus on marriage and divorce, fro Matthew 19:

1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”[/quote]

So to stay on topic, "Gay marriage" has no place in this thread and we should stay concerned in promoting and encouraging the holiness indwelt in "Christian marriage" which applies redundant position to that being between a man and a woman in a shared life between equal partners, even though one is a man and one is a woman.

Those the immtable definition of a "Christian marriage" is based on love and freedom of a man and a woman to come togther as husband and wife (the only definition there is of a marriage) in Christ.

 

[Phinehas2]

Just to follow on from the point made about Biblical myth. I and many believe the Bible account which Jesus affirms that in the beginning God made them male and female; it was for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Jesus went to marriage and compares He and his church to bridgeroom and bride. All through the Bible marriage is man and woman and all through the NT it is faithful man and woman.
Now one can marry all kinds of things using the word to unite, different colours or different types of food can be said to be good marriages.
So the context of my comment is from a Biblical basis.
Marriage is described in the Bible as requiring love, sacrifical between the husband and wife and faithfulness. The husband's very body belongs to the wife, and the wife's to the husband. The husband is to mkae decisions for the two of them but for the wife's interests.
The marriage ceremony is public and blessed by the fellowship of believers.
This is what believers should follow because of so much sexual immorality, which indicates how much variation to God's purposes exist in the world

 

[Zaac]

Hey Polycarp1. Hope you are well in Christ.

For example, this is the first time you have spelled out your belief that what God said throughout Scrpture and Christian marriage are identical.

It was an underpinning of your thought, as I now see, but I hadn't realized it until you said it outright

I said

And as I have said, the early Christian church didn't decide what marriage is. God did.

How is that saying they are identical? My statement says that GOD, not the Christian Church, decided what marriage is.

(BTW, I am curious about your view on passages where God seems to approve of multiple wives, as in Jacob taking Leah and Rachel. My guess is that you will tell me they were divinely-ordained special exceptions to His overall principle, to fulfill His will in specific circumstances. But I'd love to know how you see it.)

Nope. I will tell you what God examples. He never shows that His intent is that a man have more than one wife. As with divorce, He ALLOWED people to do things. But He never changes what He says in 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." Genesis 2:18 He made a SINGULAR helper.

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

Reinforcing again His intent that marriage be between ONE husband and ONE wife.

This singular nature is also reinforced by the display of Christ as the Bridegroom and the Body of Christ(the Church) as the Bride. Each also singular in nature.

29The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. John 3:29

 

[Zaac]

Just to follow on from the point made about Biblical myth. I and many believe the Bible account which Jesus affirms that in the beginning God made them male and female; it was for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Jesus went to marriage and compares He and his church to bridgeroom and bride. All through the Bible marriage is man and woman and all through the NT it is faithful man and woman.
Now one can marry all kinds of things using the word to unite, different colours or different types of food can be said to be good marriages.
So the context of my comment is from a Biblical basis.
Marriage is described in the Bible as requiring love, sacrifical between the husband and wife and faithfulness. The husband's very body belongs to the wife, and the wife's to the husband. The husband is to mkae decisions for the two of them but for the wife's interests.
The marriage ceremony is public and blessed by the fellowship of believers.
This is what believers should follow because of so much sexual immorality, which indicates how much variation to God's purposes exist in the world

Well said.

 

[onemorequestion]

Zaac stop derailing the thread. Marriage existed far longer than any biblical myth you might claim was the start of marriage.

Claiming that Adam and Eve are myth, derals Jesus from ever existing.

Christian marriage, per Jesus, satarted with Adam and Eve.

Thus his reference.

 

[Zebra1552]

Marriage is both secular and religious. A Muslim marriage is not the same as a Jewish one, nor are either the same as a Christian one. You can be married without directly recognizing God in the picture, and we see this all the time. Marriage is simply the agreement between the two specific people and whatever other parties they might wish to bring into that, whether it be God or whatever.

 

[Zaac]

Marriage is both secular and religious. A Muslim marriage is not the same as a Jewish one, nor are either the same as a Christian one. You can be married without directly recognizing God in the picture, and we see this all the time. Marriage is simply the agreement between the two specific people and whatever other parties they might wish to bring into that, whether it be God or whatever.

Marriage is what God says it is. All this other stuff is man-authored and misses the mark of how GOD defines marriage.