Marrying young

[robalan]

There are three basic ways of saying when you were married, in my opinion:

....

3) When you first had sex (married informally in God's eyes). This is the old, ultra-traditional method of marriage, before governments got involved and had to have everyone recorded in a registrar, and back when people lived in small family groups and everyone knew everyone else. I certainly aren't justifying it as ok now - if you are Christian you should be willing to make your vows in front of God.

If this is true, then I don't want to think HOW many times some people have been married.

 

[sjdennis]

If this is true, then I don't want to think HOW many times some people have been married.

Exactly. Sex should only be in a marriage situation, and there are spiritual, emotional and physical consequences of sex. Sex with many people is most certainly wrong, and I believe that it can be considered similar to marriage with many people. On that note, if someone has lived with / slept with / been in a de facto relationship with someone before marriage to someone else, it will have just as serious if not more serious consequences on their future marriage as if they had married previously and divorced. The same issues occur.

A good way to refer to de facto couples is "married but unchurched". Ie they are married, they just haven't had the gumption to get up in a church and admit the fact in front of their friends, family and (most importantly) God.

I know that I could get serious negative feedback on this post. That is to be expected with this sort of issue. Suffice it to say that I do have some experience with what I am talking about, and can speak from the knowledge I have gained through both my own life and my understanding of the Bible.

 

[tigercub]

A good way to refer to de facto couples is "married but unchurched". Ie they are married, they just haven't had the gumption to get up in a church and admit the fact in front of their friends, family and (most importantly) God.

For starters- Does that make Christian couples who elope 'unchurched'? What about my husband and I? We married outdoors!

I don't think we need to marry in a church to have the marriage seen by God. In fact I even question the relevance of a big white gown, 3 tier cake and a penguin suit in the face of a Godly marriage.

Wouldn't a blessing from a friend or pastor be enough? From what I've read in the Bible - well yes - so long as we have a feast afterwards and then sex.

There is that part about obeying the laws in your country - well it's not illegal to not marry is it? - and defacto couples are recognised as a couple in most countries.

 

[seebs]

Very interesting post. Have you had a legal marriage ceremony now or do you just consider yourselves married in the eyes of God?

We have the legal paperwork. We plan to replace it with a civil union in the near future to clearly distinguish between marriage (which the state of Minnesota hasn't got a say in) and tax benefits (which my church hasn't got a say in).

2) When you vowed to stay together for all your lives before God (married formally in the eyes of God). The wedding ceremony. This can stand alone without (1) if there is no legal system in that country to record marriage.

To be picky, not everyone does "vows" in the formal sense.

I certainly aren't justifying it as ok now - if you are Christian you should be willing to make your vows in front of God.

I don't see how that disqualifies a particular way of making vows in front of God. So far as I can tell, this is the only way that was recognized from the beginning.

Church ceremonies are a comparatively recent invention; they are perhaps a bit over a thousand years old. Civil ceremonies are older, but are not necessarily connected to Christian standards of marriage.

Does this help you answer the question at all?

Some; I don't remember anymore (it has been quite some time), really. I don't much care about the details; we have a formal day to celebrate on, which is the anniversary of the small gathering we had when we got the paperwork, but it's not really significant anymore.

 

[Leanna]

I know that I could get serious negative feedback on this post.

Yeah, because you're wrong.

 

[sjdennis]

For starters- Does that make Christian couples who elope 'unchurched'? What about my husband and I? We married outdoors!

I don't think we need to marry in a church to have the marriage seen by God. In fact I even question the relevance of a big white gown, 3 tier cake and a penguin suit in the face of a Godly marriage.

Wouldn't a blessing from a friend or pastor be enough? From what I've read in the Bible - well yes - so long as we have a feast afterwards and then sex.

There is that part about obeying the laws in your country - well it's not illegal to not marry is it? - and defacto couples are recognised as a couple in most countries.

Sorry, I said "married but unchurched" because that is a common term I have heard. By "churched" I do NOT mean it has to be in a church of course, that is ridiculous. It is a very short way of referring to a formal wedding ceremony using only one word. The expression is easy to pull to pieces certainly.

By "churched" I am referring to saying your vows and making a commitment in some formal way that from this day forward you will be true to each other, and consider yourselves married. I see that what I said caused a great amount of confusion, sorry for that.

 

[sjdennis]

From the dawn of time there has usually been one particular time when a man took a woman into his own house, and they became man and wife. A formal church ceremony like we have is certainly a recent invention, as seebs has pointed out. But considering your marriage as binding before God is certainly not.

When a man and woman decide to live together in a marriage-type situation, this can be considered marriage. This is what marriage was considered in old-testament times, as I understand it. From my reading of the bible, generally there was a wedding celebration at this time, often lasting for 7 days. This does not always appear to have occurred, or at least is not mentioned in all cases. Whether or not it occurred, from the time the man took the woman into his house, they were considered married.

Now, I apply this to the present day. And I believe that if a man and woman are to live together, they should be prepared to consider it a binding marriage. Children can arise from these relationships, and children need a stable family environment to grow up in. If a couple is not willing enough to consider their relationship a marriage, they should not be living together, in my opinion at least.

Now, if they are willing to consider themselves married, why can't they get formally married? There is a legal and cultural system in place in all countries to provide for people to become married and be recognised by the world as such. If a couple is prepared to live together, they should be prepared to get married according to the legal and cultural requirements of the country they reside in. Marriage in our culture traditionally (though certainly not necessarily) involves a ceremony in a church, or some other form of ceremony.

I hope this clarifies my viewpoint. This is why I consider de-facto couples to be "married" (to all intents and purposes) but "unchurched" (a single blunt word that is used in this expression to refer to wedding ceremonies / legal marriage in any form). The expression "married but unchurched" is the most common way of saying this that I have heard, but the term "unchurched" is certainly not the best - if you can suggest a more appropriate word I will refrain from using the common expression and start a new expression using that word.

If I apply this to your situation seebs, you could probably consider yourselves married either from the time you first lived together / considered yourselves married, or the date you got your legal paperwork, if you have not had a formal wedding ceremony. This is entirely up to you, as at the end of the day it is just a perception thing - the thing that matters is that you are married now.

 

[seebs]

That last part is what I see as significant; I don't care that much when I got married, as I'm pretty sure I am now married.

My objection to the "why not do X" argument is that it doesn't answer the more pressing question: Why do X?

Why should people have a big formal ceremony? There are some reasons for which people like to do so. I don't think, however, that all, or even very many, of them are good reasons.

When we did our legal dance, we invited pretty much immediate family and a couple of friends only. There were twelve people, total, in the room, and that's including the guy with the ability to sign the paperwork, all the immediate family, and even us. Or maybe eleven; I don't remember for sure.

In general, I think it's often beneficial to have marriage ceremonies, but I think it is very damaging to demand them, or to treat them as normative. Once we cross the line from "typical" to "obligatory", we are imposing new rules on people -- but, as Jesus put it, "from the beginning it was not so."

I dislike the elaborate legalism that seems to crop up about these things; people come up with additional rules, and the main function they seem to have is to get brought up as a way out of a marriage that's turning out to require some kind of work, or to be used so that someone can feel smug about being "really" married and look down on all them sinners out there who are just doing what Adam and Eve did. Only without the apple.

 

[mac6195]

My wife and I were both barely 19 when we got married. We were both in college and had a little bit of a rough time for the first 10 years. But now we have been married for 32 years and have grown closer and matured together in many ways. I think it helped that we were both christians when we got married and both saw marriage as a lifetime covenant between God and us.

 

[sjdennis]

Seebs, it might interest you to know that I consider this:

Why should people have a big formal ceremony? There are some reasons for which people like to do so. I don't think, however, that all, or even very many, of them are good reasons.

When we did our legal dance, we invited pretty much immediate family and a couple of friends only. There were twelve people, total, in the room, and that's including the guy with the ability to sign the paperwork, all the immediate family, and even us. Or maybe eleven; I don't remember for sure.

to be a formal marriage ceremony. You certainly don't need to do some big expensive hoo-ha where you invite 200 people and feed them all. But there should be some point where you say "We are married and are committed to each other", in my opinion. The way you did it sounds great. Nice and simple, little stress. Well done.

 

[seebs]

Oh, yeah, we definitely had one.

I just don't like the thing where people develop the theory that, without a formal ceremony, people aren't really married. We love building fences to keep people out, and "it seems good to do X" quickly turns into "failure to do X makes you a bad person and we can't be friends with you anymore".

It shouldn't, of course, but in the mean time, it's beneficial to be careful about that boundary.

 

[barefeetonholyground]

I'm 19 and tomorrow I will have been married five months. My husband is 20. I guess that qualifies as young.

 

[sjdennis]

Oh, yeah, we definitely had one.

I just don't like the thing where people develop the theory that, without a formal ceremony, people aren't really married. We love building fences to keep people out, and "it seems good to do X" quickly turns into "failure to do X makes you a bad person and we can't be friends with you anymore".

It shouldn't, of course, but in the mean time, it's beneficial to be careful about that boundary.

I actually agree with you entirely! Sorry we ended arguing with each other so much - most of it was misunderstanding I think.

There are two sides to it:
You can be married in God's eyes without having a formal marriage ceremony, by just moving in together.
So if people just move in together, whether or not they are Christians, does that mean they are married in God's eyes, and to break up is as serious as divorce?

I'm not saying I have the final answer to this, I don't want to debate it at all! I know what I think about the issue, but know that if we start debating it we will just misunderstand each other and go on for pages. It's a good thing for people to think about and form their own opinion on nevertheless.

 

[seebs]

It's an interesting question. I can't always tell whether people are married or just shacked up. I think a lot of breakups are probably really divorces.

 

[robalan]

I actually agree with you entirely! Sorry we ended arguing with each other so much - most of it was misunderstanding I think.

There are two sides to it:
You can be married in God's eyes without having a formal marriage ceremony, by just moving in together.
So if people just move in together, whether or not they are Christians, does that mean they are married in God's eyes, and to break up is as serious as divorce?

I'm not saying I have the final answer to this, I don't want to debate it at all! I know what I think about the issue, but know that if we start debating it we will just misunderstand each other and go on for pages. It's a good thing for people to think about and form their own opinion on nevertheless.

I highly doubt that most people who cohabitate (while legally unmarried) have the same level of committment and devotion that legally married couples have. My point is that most people who cohabitate do it for the very reason that they lack true committment for a standard marriage. I don't believe these shack-up marriages are legitimate. I believe they are half-hearted and uncommitted.

 

[CrystalBrooke]

agreed...i wish i could give you reps.

 

[tigercub]

I highly doubt that most people who cohabitate (while legally unmarried) have the same level of committment and devotion that legally married couples have. My point is that most people who cohabitate do it for the very reason that they lack true committment for a standard marriage. I don't believe these shack-up marriages are legitimate. I believe they are half-hearted and uncommitted.

How can you be so sure though? Perhaps they just cannot afford a wedding. I know here at least - the cheapest way to get married is in a registry office - and the minimum cost of that is around $200. Some people just don't have any spare cash.

If the Government will recognise a Civil marriage- why won't some Christians? They complete every requisite of the Bible as far as I can see, and if you believe it needs to be recognised by the Law.....well it is.

 

[seebs]

I highly doubt that most people who cohabitate (while legally unmarried) have the same level of committment and devotion that legally married couples have. My point is that most people who cohabitate do it for the very reason that they lack true committment for a standard marriage. I don't believe these shack-up marriages are legitimate. I believe they are half-hearted and uncommitted.

I would say that they are statistically likely to be this way -- but that doesn't mean they all are, and judging a specific person's marriage based on those statistics could be gravely harmful.

There is no faster way to undermine whatever sincerity a marriage has than to treat it as though it's fake. If enough people tell the couple that they're not serious, they may come to believe it too.

 

[sjdennis]

I highly doubt that most people who cohabitate (while legally unmarried) have the same level of committment and devotion that legally married couples have. My point is that most people who cohabitate do it for the very reason that they lack true committment for a standard marriage. I don't believe these shack-up marriages are legitimate. I believe they are half-hearted and uncommitted.

Without contradicting what seebs has said, which will be true in some cases, I would also agree with this for the majority of couples. Although a couple can choose to live together and consider themselves married, most who live together do so because they are not prepared for actual marriage.

What I am saying is that I believe that in God's eyes, a couple livng together IS a marriage, and just as significant, whether they recognise it as such or not. So if they break up, the consequences are just as severe for children, future relationships etc.

In New Zealand, it only costs $175 to get married in the registry office - most couples could afford this if they truly recognised their relationship as marriage. This is similar to what seebs appears to have done - they rightly considered their relationship marriage, so eventally did the legal paperwork in a small ceremony to show the world that it was. If a couple is not prepared to do this at some stage, they MOST LIKELY (not necessarily) lack the committment necessary for a marriage, and stable family life. The rate of breakups of defacto relationships is much greater than the divorce rate, which supports this hypothesis.

 

[Transient]

How can you be so sure though? Perhaps they just cannot afford a wedding. I know here at least - the cheapest way to get married is in a registry office - and the minimum cost of that is around $200. Some people just don't have any spare cash.

If the Government will recognise a Civil marriage- why won't some Christians? They complete every requisite of the Bible as far as I can see, and if you believe it needs to be recognised by the Law.....well it is.

I got married for 20 dollars. Being poor doesn't keep you from getting married here. However, I have lived with a girl before I got married when I was an atheist. Though it was do to a lot of pressure from this person and a lot of personal insecurity on my part.