What constitutes "marriage"?

This is a very unfortunate statement. In fact, I made a post in the private women's forum about a month ago concerning this type of attitude, and how detrimental it is.

It is a view that many educators in our government-run schools want you to have, and are working hard to promote. There was a psychology teacher that spent quite a while attempting to get this concept through to people, and part of the method was to teach the students that you must separate love and sex.

It's this very attitude that is destroying the purity of our young people.

Sex is not just sex. It is very meaningful on a number of levels. That is how it was intended to be. To make it into just another biological function is quite destructive.

That said, I am now withdrawing from the conversation if it continues in this vein, save for my obligation to reply to Marcia. I've purposely tried to use unobtrusive terminology in the thread as this is an open forum, but the conversation has now progressed to a level I'm uncomfortable with in mixed company.

Even if the moderators make no attempts to intervene, I do hope that people here will have the courtesy and decency to take the more intense parts of the conversation to the private forums to be discussed among like company.

 

Deuteronomy, chapter 24
"1": When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement , and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Took a document to break a marriage


Genesis 34
"8": And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife.
"9": And make ye marriages with us , and give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you.
"11": And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give.

"12": Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife. There certainly was a covenant made before the man got a wife .


It certainly took a document to break a marriage and seems to be saying in Genesis 34 that it took a covenant to make a marriage. If you are looking for a written document?

 

Then why are you bothering to respond to my posts?

 

This is a very unfortunate statement. In fact, I made a post in the private women's forum about a month ago concerning this type of attitude, and how detrimental it is. </font>[/QUOTE]Since we do not have access to the private women’s forum, this statement has no meaning or relevance here. Furthermore, I don’t know what kind of attitude that you are presupposing in my statement taken out of its proper context. Additionally, you have not provided argument or reason why the attitude, whatever you suppose it to be, is detrimental. For the record, this opening statement would be stricken from the testimony in court.

What view is this? I have never stated this view—whatever it is.

Well, love and sex are not the same. The lustful pervert who rapes a woman is having sex but he is not showing love. The rapist is simply gratifying his own selfish lust. Even in marriage, the act itself is not necessarily love. A spouse seeking only his or her own pleasure is not behaving lovingly. It is only when the spouse puts the other spouse’s interests and enjoyment above his or her own that love is demonstrated and expressed. Our evil and wicked society has tried to semantically justify illicit and sinful sex by creating the euphemism of “making love.” It’s not love but it’s lust!

What attitude is that? Define it! How is it affecting one’s purity?

Well, if it’s not sex, then what is it? It certainly is not marriage or a superior spiritual experience!

It is never meaningful and right outside of the marriage covenant. You are rambling on vague generalities that can mean anything or nothing. What do you mean meaningful? Pleasurable? Enjoyable? Exhilarating? Only in marriage does sex have any meaning as part of that unique, special, God-ordained and blessed relationship between one man and one woman. Otherwise, it is sordid, sinful, wicked, selfish, and only satisfies the wicked lusts of the human heart.

How’s that? You haven’t said anything.

Are you saying someone has spoken with anything less than good manners, modesty and decorum in mixed company? Who? This smacks of a spurious piety and prudery. A few posts ago, I was under the impression that you were arguing for man and woman living together by mutual agreement without benefit of a preacher. IMHO, this is the moral outrage on this thread! Scripture is clear that cohabitation outside of a marriage covenant is sin regardless of any sappy ethereal theories, which sentimental people may hold.

Oh, come off it! I don’t enjoy being blunt and confrontational but there are times when one should be outspoken. You are insinuating that someone may not have “courtesy and decency” (your words) on this thread and since you are responding to my post, I assume you are referring to me. This is a low blow. You are impugning character rather than dealing with the issues under discussion. Where is Christian charity in such an innuendo? You have flung out your spiel and are running for cover. I dare you to quote any improper things that I posted. I have been very circumspect with regard to modesty, morals and decorum. Read Scripture and you will find some very blunt statements on both sexual and scatological matters.

Thank you for reading even though you may choose not to reply.

 

Then why are you bothering to respond to my posts? </font>[/QUOTE]To encourage you to provide evidence for what you matter of factly state as fact.

 

I've had a change of heart.

When the man learns to say "yes, dear" and fools the woman into thinking he really means it...

THAT constitutes a marriage.

 

It is probably not good netiquette to quote one’s self but another poster quoted me out of context and posted the above statement. Yes, I posted it and stick by it. In context, however, I was arguing that sex is not of itself marriage. Again, I stand by my assertion. Sex is part of marriage but it is not marriage and it is not the most important part. The Scriptures say a great deal about marriage but it speaks very little of sex except for the prohibition of perversion, fornication and adultery.

We live in a sex-crazed society that has elevated sex to the ultimate experience and goal of life. Have those who live a celibate life a lower quality of existence? Paul even seemed to recommend celibacy during a period of crisis and persecution (I Corinthians 7) although marriage is God’s original plan and intention for man (Genesis 2).

It is a mistake, IMHO, for even Christians to exalt sex, as the unbelieving world does, beyond its God-ordained role in marriage. Admittedly, sex brings exclusive delight and gratification to husband and wife in their own special relationship. Sex is a blessing enjoyed within marriage but marriage is so much more than sex. Even Christians, when they think the sex life makes the marriage, are headed for disappointment and trouble. The companionship and love of husband and wife far transcends anything that sex offers. For the unsaved world, sex is the object of marriage; for the believers, the covenantal relationship of husband and wife as one flesh (i.e. united into one person) is the object but sex is an added special blessing.

 

Then why are you bothering to respond to my posts? </font>[/QUOTE]To encourage you to provide evidence for what you matter of factly state as fact. </font>[/QUOTE]Ich denke dass Sie zu Nadel mich versuchen. Ein Werbemann soll Deutsch lesen können. Ich steche nur Ihnen ein wenig. Mein Deutsch erhält ein kleines rostig.

Mon français d'école secondaire est pire que mon Allemand de collège.

 

Il mio italiano non è molto più meglio, ma che cosa questo riguarda qualche cosa?

 

I have not attacked you,and looking back over this entire thread I see plenty you said wrong that was not edited.

 

Those I know who have entered into a common law union (again, this is not cohabitation, but a marriage with a ceremony, the exchange of vows, witnesses and a document) even in my state have no problem with insurance and all the other doomsday prophecies offered in this thread. They file their documents with the Recorder of Deeds in the county in which they married, and they have no problem whatever in enjoying all the rights and privileges of "legally" married couples.

Where they would have a problem is the unfortunate event of separation or divorce. There will be very little the courts can do in regard to property, alimony or child support, visitation rights, etc. without a license. The courts can do some things, yes, but with a license, the court can do whatever it wants in such a case, even against conditions and arrangements agreed upon by the man and woman. The license effectively makes the State a third party in the union. (That's the heart of their objection with obtaining marriage licenses.)

As far as what constitutes marriage, paidagogos has it exactly right. Here ye him.

Now what I think Gina is trying to say, is that marriage in honorable in all. That is to say, it is common or natural law. The government did not create it, and therefore must honor and protect it whatever rite is observed to solemnize a marriage.

With the Wai Wai tribe in South America, all a lady had to do was tie her hammock below the hammock of the man who proposed, and *poof!* they're married. Now the state, in this case the Crown (it was British Guiana) can't come in and say they aren't married. But I must temper this with the statement that even though there may be no verbal exchange of vows, the vows are understood and implied in the rite.

I think Gina is correct in saying that if a man and woman believed that sex was the rite that united them in marriage, then they are married by that rite. But to legitimately believe that, there must have be a tradition of that belief in the culture. I don't think she is saying that a man and woman can simply make up their own rite and call it a marriage.

 

You can consider yourself married to anyone you want, it still is not leagl. And if it isn't legal for pastors do do marriage cerimonies without a license, then why are they breaking the law (from a previous post several pages back). For christians to go around breaking the law there is no excuse.
Try claiming that kind of 'marriage' on your taxes.

 

Neither do homosexuals. This is no proof.

"Filing papers" seems to make it "legal".

 

Sorry but this looks an awful lot like Italian to me and it is not in my repertoire. Do you speak or read Italian or did you use a translator?

 

During the Colonial period in SC, the upcountry was rather inaccessible and the Anglican priest only made a tour through the region every two or three years. Men and women, who wanted to marry, made a public announcement of their intentions and began cohabitation until the Anglican priest came to say the vows. There were times when a widow needed to marry quickly to have someone to provide for her and her children during the winter to keep them from starving.

On the other hand, some of our Baptist ancestors wanted to be married by a Baptist minister of the Gospel since they rejected the heretical theology of the state church. The state refused to recognize the legitimacy of an unlicensed minister who was not part of the state church. These Baptist pastors were forbidden to marry people. The Baptist pastors married the couples anyway without the benefit of a state sanctioned minister. Was this wrong? Why?

What do you say?

 

I jumped the broom, myself, with Peggy!

Ed

 

Again, in states that recognize common law as legal, you can indeed claim your spouse on your taxes.

 

After a certain length of time, which constitutes the legal requirements, and is a public acknowledgement.

 

Nonsense! Either you have not read or understood all the posts on this thread. Joseph and Mary were husband and wife (i.e. married) at least arguably nine (9) months before they had sexual relations (see Matt. 1:18,24-25).

</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for answering paidagogos. No, sorry to say I did not read all the posts. That is why I asked what I asked. I figured someone would like to tell me like it is.

What you say certainly looks like what the scripture says, but does that make it so? Lets go back to that “dispensation”, into that time of Jewish Marriage Custom. The Bible takes us there, and in His Word we see what marriage is, and their custom. This will meet the criteria you place on scripture, but place into the proper setting.

The Jewish man went to the home to establish the marriage “covenant”. He paid a price and that covenant became effective and was regarded from that moment on as “husband and wife. The “bride” was set apart, “sanctified for the “bridegroom”. The groom and the bride would then drink wine from a cup that had been prayed, and blessed over. The bridegroom then left to return to his father’s house, there remaining for days, and months. In words of assurance he would make a promise – “Let not your heart be troubled----I go to prepare a place for you -----and ----I will come again.”

When Jesus was on this earth, he being Jewish, communicated with those He came for in familiar terms they would understand, and assure them in familiarity of custom of which they had derived from Him long ago.

So I image Joseph did as others before him; build a bridal chamber in his father’s house, preparing for that day they would become one, making she “called wife” to be his “wife in oness”. The “bride wife” would make herself ready of her clothes and trousseau. She made herself ready early for she didn’t know the exact hour or day he would return. When he did return she would go out to meet him as he called her name. They would go into their bridal chamber shortly after arrival where the guests would be. When the “marriage of the two becoming one”, in their “blood covenant” the couple were husband and wife now linked together in their marriage now recognized by God, and not just man. Then the party and celebration began, after the marriage, just as we see when all were well drunken, and Jesus made the best wine ever, of which I am sure we will be able to enjoy with Him.

Vows can be made, but can they become “one”. We can break our vows, but our marriage set out in scripture will stand. Only God can separate again, detaching the woman from the man. Death does this to us, for we are then free to marry by vow if that is our wishes, or what we have been dealt in life.

The reason it is not portrayed as such is that of impossibility. While her husband lived, she was the adulteress wife of Uriah, married to the adultery of David. Two of adultery does not a husband and wife make. A woman can only make one “blood” covenant, and the man many.

I’ll buy half of that. Show the “blood” to buy the other half.

God not only made covenant with the nation he born, but “blood covenant”
showed He made them His Own.

Yes, they should not be forced against their will. But we are not to minimize the importance of “blood” covenants? Their fornication is marriage, honorable marriage, if he makes her “wife”. If not, they live in married fornication, for they have become ‘One”. All is not lost, for they can be forgiven.

Can we only complain of those we believe sin, when we ourselves were born in sin? Jesus is the only one I know that was not born in sin. Praise God that those immorals can be saved just as we were.

I believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for my salvation. I confessed His name, finding my repentance in Him, for He forgave me of every sin I did, have, and will do. I am OSAS by the grace of God, through the faith of Jesus Christ. Some are saved byfaith

Ephesians 5:22-33 shows flesh and spirit blood covenant. We came by sinful earthly blood of the first son, Adam. The second Son, is God’s only begotten Son, and He came of spiritual blood. Spiritually we are presently in the Body of Christ, coming through His blood.

We are to be in the spirit, and not in the flesh. It leads to wrong conclusions in our fancies – Romans 8

Christian faith, ituttut

 

See above.

Christian faith, ituttut